Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ASHDOWN FOREST BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

BURMAH-TOTAL REFINERIES TRUST BILL (By Order)

CLIFTON SUSPENSION BRIDGE BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday next.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

BILL PRESENTED

RENFREW COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. William Ross presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Renfrew County Council; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 3.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Hunterston

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to give a decision on the application for oil and petrochemical developments on the Hunterston peninsula; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Corrie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now take steps to review the Hunterston project in the light of Her Majesty's Government's policy of protecting the environment.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I intend to clarify the position on Hunterston as soon as I have fully studied the complex situation.

Mr. Lambie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am very disappointed by that reply? Does he appreciate that the question of oil development at Hunterston has been before us since 1969, when he was previously Secretary of State for Scotland? Is he further aware that in 1970 there was a General Election, in which he was replaced by a Tory Secretary of State who has delayed any decision on this development for the past three and a half years. Can he give Ayr County Council the assurance that an immediate decision will be taken on the council's application for oil development at Hunterston before the next election?

Mr. Ross: I would have been disappointed if my hon. Friend had not expressed disappointment. He knows me well enough to realise that I will not indulge in unnecessary delay. There have been considerable changes since the first inquiry.

Mr. Corrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the findings of the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee and make a statement upon them with particular reference to the possible dangers of petrochemical developments being placed besides existing nuclear development? Will he assure the House that if there is


the slightest risk of any danger the Government will not go ahead with the development at Hunterston?

Mr. Ross: This is one of the important aspects that I have to take into account. We have just received this report, which will have to be studied carefully.

Derelict Areas (Glasgow)

Mr. Tom McMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what new proposals he has for speeding up demolition of derelict buildings in Glasgow.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Milian): My right hon. Friend will take any action which is his responsibility as expeditiously as possible, but this is largely a matter for the local authority.

Mr. McMillan: Will my hon. Friend consider making places available in Government training centres for training people in the skills of demolition so as to speed up demolition in areas such as the new Glasgow Central Constituency? Is he aware that this would reduce the crime rate and the burden upon the fire brigade and ambulance services while at the same time performing a great service to the city of Glasgow?

Mr. Millan: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. I will see that his suggestion, which is principally for the Department of Employment, is investigated.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman encourage close co-operation so as to preserve buildings of architectural interest, even though some of them are in derelict areas?

Mr. Millan: I appreciate the hon. Lady's point. This is a matter which we shall consider as occasion arises.

Mr. Selby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to enable Glasgow Corporation to undertake immediate emergency measures to speed up, without regard to any other building development, the desolated areas in the city, particularly in Govan, in view of the extent to which that area is suffering blight.

Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend certainly wants to see speedy develop-

ment or improvement of desolated areas in Glasgow. He hopes to have early consultations with the corporation about the policies to be followed.

Mr. Selby: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. When he meets representatives of Glasgow Corporation for discussions, will he press the necessity for rebuilding a direct labour department to ensure that any labour available in Glasgow is not used to build offices, shops and warehouses, but will be available for house building?

Mr. Millan: The Scottish Office shares my hon. Friend's support for direct labour departments. This is a point which I hope to discuss when I meet representatives of the corporation.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman remember the importance of Walmer Crescent, since its architectural value is recognised throughout Europe?

Mr. Millan: I remember the import. ance of these matters. I remember also the importance of doing something about the appalling slum conditions in Govan and elsewhere in Glasgow.

Fresh-water Fishing

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary or State for Scotland when he hopes to introduce legislation arising from the Hunter Committee's Report on freshwater fishing.

Mr. William Ross: I am considering this matter but I cannot yet make a statement of the Government's intentions.

Mr. Dalyell: Albeit it is a second best, may I ask the Secretary of State to reflect on the draft Bill that I gather he inherited in his Department to see whether it is acceptable? If it is not, can something be done about the stocking of currently poor water to assist anglers who cannot afford better waters further afield?

Mr. Ross: I appreciate the second point of my hon. Friend's question. I do not know whether there was a Bill available—I have not seen it—but it is unlikely that it would meet the attitude I adopt in relation to the Hunter Report.

Rates

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the change in local rates which will occur in the year 1974–75.

Mr. Millan: It is not practicable to make a useful estimate at present.

Mr. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the serious concern expressed by local authorities yesterday following discussions with Lord Hughes? Is he further aware of their fears that there might be a savage rates rise this year? Can he make it clear—in view of the assurances given following the rents freeze that local authorities would be compensated for loss of income—that authorities will be fully compensated, otherwise we will find that instead of a rent rise in October tenants will be faced with a major rates rise in August?

Mr. Millan: I think that what worries local authorities most is the considerable pressure on costs. This is one of the inflationary consequences of the last Government. As for rent rises, we have already said that details of the compensation for local authorities are being worked out.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the hon. Gentleman come clean and acknowledge that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said already that the local authorities are not to be compensated in full for the consequences of the rent freeze?

Mr. Millan: I do not think that my right hon. Friend has said that at all.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: He did say it.

Mr. Brewis: Will the Government give preference to ratepayers in urban areas, and does that not mean that ratepayers in rural areas will be prejudiced?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman is talking about a different situation. In any event, the rate support grant order for Scotland will be due for consideration in this House very soon, and these points can be discussed then.

Paisley

Mr. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans to visit Paisley.

Mr. William Ross: I have no plans at present to visit Paisley, but, as my hon. Friend knows, I am always willing to consider or undertake visits where circumstances so warrant.

Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend will realise that his appointment to high office has raised the hopes of people in the Ferguslie Park area of Paisley that some action will at last be taken to help them. If he decides to visit Paisley, is he aware that I can show him scenes of devastation unprecedented in peace-time Britain?

Mr. Ross: I am aware of the special problems of Paisley in Ferguslie Park, and some improvement schemes have been approved in respect of that. However, the initiative must come from Paisley Town Council, and we shall do all that we can to assist the authority.

Mr. Younger: Before the right hon. Gentleman visits Paisley, will he, as Scotland's economic Minister, take some action to save the jobs of those in Paisley who work in Yarrows? Is he aware that there appears to be a threat that the Greek Government will withdraw Yarrows from the list of contractors for a £125 million order, because of a blunder in the Government's foreign policy?

Mr. Ross: I do not accept that there has been any blunder in the Government's foreign policy.

Rents

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the ratio of average council house rents to average family incomes in Scotland at the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Millan: The most recent estimate available is for 1972, when the figure was about 5 per cent.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the proportion for south of the border is exactly double that and that for most other countries in Western Europe it is about four times that? What conceivable purpose is served by freezing rents and putting the burden on the ratepayers? Do the Government think that the rating system is more egalitarian than the rent system, given the background of the Fair Rents Act?

Mr. Millan: I have said that we are not putting the burden on ratepayers. In the present economic situation it is highly important to dampen down any inflationary tendencies. The rent increases imposed under the Housing Finance Act by the previous administration were a very serious inflationary tendency. The fact that we have frozen these rents has been warmly welcomed all over Scotland.

Dr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend resist the nonsense talked from the Opposition benches about rents? Will he also resist any temptation to relate rents to family incomes and leave only the principal wage earner in a family to pay the rent? There should be no relationship between the rent paid by a family and the total family income.

Mr. Millan: I note what my hon. Friend says. I may say that I shall have no difficulty in resisting suggestions from the Opposition benches.

Mr. Edward Taylor: How can the hon. Gentleman say that the burden will not fall on the ratepayers when in a letter to me dated 18th March his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he was working out detailed arrangements whereby the major part of the burden would be taken by the Government? Will the hon. Gentleman say clearly whether the Government intend to carry the full cost of the rent freeze or whether ratepayers will have to carry some of it?

Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend has made the position clear. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the details when they are published in due course.

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authority tenants in Scotland are now paying a nil rent.

Mr. Millan: At 28th November 1973—the latest date for which information is available—there were about 42,000 tenants whose total rent was met by rebate.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am glad to know that he has at last recognised and accepted that the Tory Government concentrated help where it was needed and freed 42,000 people from paying rent in addition to 125,000 people who were relieved

through the associated supplementary benefit scheme from paying any rent? Will he now remove his silly proposal to repeal the Housing Finance Act and concentrate help where it is really needed?

Mr. Millan: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. As he pointed out, there have always been large numbers of people whose rents have been met through the supplementary benefits scheme.

Mr. MacArthur: What about the 42,000?

Mr. Millan: What about allowing me to answer the question? There were local authority rent rebate schemes long before the last Government's Housing Finance Act. This Government have no intention of abolishing rent rebate schemes.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Is my hon. Friend aware that many heads of households living in poverty are denied any rent rebate because of the operation of the added earner charge? Will he, when framing legislation on housing finance, consider abolishing this iniquitous surcharge?

Mr. Millan: Before the Housing Finance Act was introduced rent rebates were matters for local authorities. We have already said that we shall abolish the Act and introduce legislation of our own.

Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the introduction of the rent freeze is just about the most grossly unfair way of helping rent payers that could be invented? Does he realise that he will concentrate the greatest help on the richest tenants and the smallest help on the poorest tenants? Can he justify that situation? Why not raise the needs allowance, which will ensure that the money goes to help the poorest tenants most?

Mr. Millan: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said as a factual statement of the position. I repeat that the rent freeze has been warmly welcomed in Scotland.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is far better to leave rent policy in the hands of the local authorities, as they know it best?

Mr. Millan: Yes. That has always been our policy.

Planning Procedures

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how he proposes to improve planning procedures in general and those relating to oil developments in particular.

Mr. William Ross: I shall consider whether there are ways in which planning applications, including those related to oil developments, might be handled more efficiently and quickly.

Mr. Fletcher: That is very disappointing news for developers and objectors, especially those who want to see Scotland's key role in developing British oil developed to the absolute maximum. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with existing planning procedures and that one of the key reasons for this is the unwillingness of Government to come clean and state their intentions, especially on major decisions? Will the right hon. Gentleman please come clean and tell the people in affected areas precisely what the Government's proposals are?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the Secretary of State cannot declare his intentions before an inquiry starts—

Mr. Fletcher: He should.

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he should, he had better try to change the law. At present, the Secretary of State has a judicial function to perform at the end of an inquiry. The hon. Gentleman is asking me to throw aside the rights of people to object. That cannot be done.

Mr. Grimond: When the right hon. Gentleman looks at planning procedures, will he examine the situation in the sea? At present, apparently there are no adequate procedures for siting installations and routing pipelines in the sea, and these are matters of great importance on the fishing grounds.

Mr. Ross: That is a new aspect, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised it. It will have to be looked at.
On the general point, much of the criticism in respect of planning inquiries often contradicts itself. Some people say that they are too quick. Others say that they are too slow. There is a case for looking at them generally to see whether, from the point of view of efficiency in the handling of inquiries, improvements can be made. We are doing that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will not the right hon. Gentleman show a little more urgency about this? This oil development is essential for the future development of Scotland. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a delay by even one year may cost £100 million on the balance of payments and all the benefits that it will bring to Scotland?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should also appreciate that speed in this matter might well lead to a decision being taken which could be regretted in a year or even in 10 years.

Edinburgh (Development Area Status)

Mr. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in the matter of full development status for Edinburgh.

Mr. William Ross: The Lord Provost of Edinburgh raised this with me when I met him on 15th March. I assured him that when the Government come to look at assisted area boundaries generally we shall give full consideration to Edinburgh's case.

Mr. Hutchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that in the last Parliament all seven Edinburgh Members wanted this dealt with and that we failed? All that we want now—and I think we are united about it—is for the Secretary of State to make the capital the same as the rest of Scotland.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we cannot treat Edinburgh in isolation from the rest of the country. I assure him that we shall look at this question when the whole position is reviewed.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the same promise as his Conservative predecessor that, when any change is made in development area status


throughout Britain, Edinburgh given the first priority?

Mr. Ross: I will not be tied to promises which that lot made.

Educational Institute

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the Educational Institute of Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Robert Hughes): My right hon. Friend has informed the Educational Institute of Scotland that he is willing to arrange for a Scottish Minister to meet it and the other main teacher associations shortly.

Mr. Monro: May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Government Front Bench? As he knows, the designation scheme is due for review this summer. When he meets the EIS, will he be able to announce a new and attractive scheme agreed by the Salaries Committee which may go some way to help the maldistribution of teachers in the west of Scotland?

Mr. Hughes: The designation scheme is at present under consideration, and it will be discussed with the associations.

Mr. Hunter: When my right hon. Friend meets the EIS will he tell it that he has acceded to its request that children it secondary schools should be allowed to leave on their sixteenth birthday if they so desire?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend has a later Question on this matter. There are major advantages in having fixed leaving dates. Obviously this matter can be looked at, but the educational advantages should not be disregarded.

Mr. MacArthur: When the Secretary of State meets the institute will he tell it, us and the country whether he seriously intends to carry through the Labour Party's eductionally damaging threats to the grant aided schools?

Mr. Hughes: There are no educationally damaging threats in the Labour Party's programme. When we meet the teachers' associations I am sure that the common theme running through our discussions will be how we can mutually

serve the interests of the children in the Scottish education system.

Mr. Sillars: Will my hon. Friend make sure that Ayrshire is not excluded from the new designation scheme?

Mr. Hughes: That is a matter that I should like to discuss, but I cannot commit myself at this stage.

Horticulture Industry

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the need for special assistance to the horticulture industry in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Ross: The Scottish National Farmers' Union has made representations to me about the effects of increased fuel oil prices. I am urgently considering these.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Continental growers appear to have been given assurances of financial help with the increased price of fuel oil, and that the recently announced increased price for coal will affect commercial growers who are still using coal?

Mr. Ross: Yes, I am aware of the situation. It is not confined to Scotland or, indeed, to this country. The people who seem to be better off are those who use natural gas and are our greatest competitors—the Dutch.

Scottish Assembly

Mr. Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Government's proposals for a Scottish Assembly.

Mr. William Ross: As has already been made clear, the Government intend to undertake discussions with representatives of Scottish public opinion before bringing forward any proposals.

Mr. Steel: Will the Secretary of State confirm that since the election he has undergone a blinding conversion to the view that there should be an elected assembly in Scotland?

Mr. Ross: No, I do not think so. The Labour Party and I have said all along


that there is no blinding jump on the road to Damascus here.

Mr. Lawson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole of the Kilbrandon Report has been badly vitiated by the very narrow interpretation of the terms of reference by the commission and that the majority of its members appear to have reached their conclusion before studying the evidence? Will he ensure that we have a Green Paper, not a White Paper, so that we can discuss this matter without any commitment whatsoever?

Mr. Ross: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. The truth is that people talk about Kilbrandon, but very few have ever read it and have no idea what it proposes. I have heard people say, "The time for talking is over. Let us get down to action." They have not read Kilbrandon either. Kilbrandon said that the survey proved that there was no clear evidence of what the people want.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: We know what we want.

Mr. Ross: Judging from the behaviour of the hon. Lady and her Friends during recent days, I do not think they know what they want.
What is relevant is what Kilbrandon said in paragraph 112:
We would expect our Report to lead to public debate and the formulation of a more clearly defined public opinion. Only then will it he right for decisions to be taken.
That is where we are starting.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after the report Lord Kilbrandon was also widely publicised as saying that if the people want it they will have to vote for it? The ballot box results show what proportion of the people are already doing that. Wait until the next election and see what happens then.

Mr. Ross: If anything, the election results in Scotland showed that the great majority voted against separation.

Nuclear Reactors

Mr. Ancram: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that any nuclear reactors used in proposed power stations in Scotland are

of British construction and conform to the highest safety standards.

Mr. Millan: On safety, I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks. A decision on the type of reactor to be used will be taken in the light of advice from the Nuclear Power Advisory Board, which is awaited.

Mr. Ancram: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the serious concern within constituencies such as Berwick and East Lothian about the safety angle? Is he prepared to undertake that no decision will be taken on these proposed nuclear power stations until that concern has been satisfied?

Mr. Millan: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "satisfying that concern". I have said that safety considerations mus be paramount in this matter and that that will guide us in any approval that we may give for any particular application.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend apply his undoubted powers of scepticism to any proposal for an oil-fired power station at Bo'Ness and give an undertaking that the views of Mr. Frank Tombs of the SSEB will be preferred to those of Mr. Hawkins of the CEGB when making a decision on the nuclear power station, possibly at Dunbar?

Mr. Millan: I am aware of Mr. Tombs' views, which will be taken into consideration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has already given a pledge that this whole matter will be debated in the House before any decision is taken about the type of reactor that may be used in any future installations.

Aberdeen (Communications)

Mr. Fairgrieve: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve road and air communications with Aberdeen.

Mr. William Ross: I am giving high priority to the improvement of the roads affording access to Aberdeen, and a substantial number of schemes are in progress or in preparation. Air services, which are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, have recently been improved by the operators concerned and further improvements are in prospect.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that Aberdeen is the oil capital not just of Scotland or of the United Kingdom, but of the whole of Europe? Before any other communications start to be made with the United Kingdom, may I suggest that the road to Aberdeen is made dual carriageway throughout and that the Nissen huts which form Aberdeen airport are replaced by permanent structures?

Mr. Ross: It is because I realise the importance of Aberdeen in the development of oil that we have taken the action that has been announced.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Since taking office, has my right hon. Friend had time to study the announcement by the previous Government about investment in rail networks in Scotland and, particularly, to ascertain whether there has been a switch in resources from the road to the rail network to finance that?

Mr. Ross: I have not had time to make a detailed study of the point raised by my hon. Friend, but as he has brought it to my notice I shall do so.

Mr. Sproat: With regard to the infrastructure of Aberdeen, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, in all fairness, that while much still needs to be done, much was done by the previous Government about Aberdeen harbour, Peterhead harbour—to set the A9 in train —and Dyce airport?

Mr. Ross: I do not hesitate to do that. Any scheme that is in progress was started by the previous administration.

Regional Councils and Health Authorities

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of days per year on which a member of the new regional councils and a member of the area health boards, respectively, will be required to attend meetings.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Health boards have not yet established a fixed pattern of meetings, nor have they decided on their committee structures. It is estimated, however, that, on average, members may be expected to attend at least two meetings each month.
It is impossible to estimate the number of meetings to be held by regional councils and their committees, as this will have to be determined by the councils themselves after election; it is likely to vary widely because of the differing size and work load of the regions.

Mr. Gourlay: Is my hon. Friend aware that a Tory local authority in London has reduced the £10 daily allowance to 5p, thus eliminating, or attempting to eliminate, the membership of Labour Members from that authority? Will my hon. Friend either make this allowance mandatory in Scotland or introduce a full-time payment for regional councils? Will he also take steps to ensure that local authorities in Scotland provide adequate unpaid leave of absence to employees who undertake public duties?

Mr. Hughes: I am disappointed to hear of the case in England, but I hope that Scottish local authorities will bear in mind that it is up to 10 per 24-hour absence and will make this as reasonable as possible and not attempt to cut the figure to a bare minimum.
As regards the absence of local authority employees for health board duties, I hope that local authority members will be generous in this provision and will bear in mind that a good example of this is the way in which nationalised industries and other public bodies allow time off.

Secondary School Teachers (Glasgow)

Mr. White: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much the number of teachers in secondary schools in the Glasgow Education Authority is below establishment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In September last Glasgow was about 350 teachers short of the number needed for the staffing standards proposed in the report on secondary school staffing. The report recognised, of course, that these standards were for the future and would not be achieved for some time yet, especially in the more difficult areas.

Mr. White: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that one school in Pollok is 20 teachers short? I do not blame my hon. Friend for that, because we have been subjected to four years of Tory rule.


Will my hon. Friend regard this as urgent, and urge Glasgow Corporation to make local authority houses available to teachers in the way that most local authorities do for firemen and policemen?

Mr. Hughes: I shall bear in mind the suggestion about council housing. A circular was issued last month by the Scottish Education Department, after consultation with local authority associations, asking all education authorities, apart from Glasgow, Lanarkshire and Renfrew-shire, not to improve their staffing position in the session 1974–75 beyond that attained this session. It is hoped that that will help to make more teachers available in areas of extreme shortage.

Mr. Brewis: How does the hon. Gentleman expect to get more teachers if they are paid less than mineworkers? Is the situation not going to get much worse?

Mr. Hughes: Teachers' salaries are a matter for negotiation. I do not think that one should in any way decry the settlement made to the miners. It will help to improve the conditions of children in mining areas and enable them to benefit from the system of education that is provided.

Mr. Sillars: Is there any truth in the suggestion that when the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) retires he will take a job in the pits?

Mr. Hughes: Not soon enough.

Landowners (Registration)

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish annually a list of all owners of land, giving the area, date it was acquired, and the purchase price, and place this in the reference or public libraries of the regional councils in whose areas the land is situated.

Mr. Millan: No, Sir. The expense of doing this would not be justified. Since the information is already available in the Department of the Registers of Scotland.

Mr. Doig: Is my hon. Friend aware that few people apply to see or read the registers in Scotland, whereas many people go to public and reference libraries, and the costs would be justified to make

the facts known to the public? That would be better than wild speculation and rumours, particularly about local authority members.

Mr. Millan: It is unfortunate if there are rumours and speculation, but the information is publicly available, and to duplicate it, as my hon. Friend suggests, in public libraries all over Scotland would not be justified, in view of the expense involved.

Mr. MacArthur: May I ask whether, for the removal or confirmation of doubt, the hon. Gentleman will now publish in reference or public libraries in Dundee a list of all owners of local land, giving the area, the date it was acquired, the purchase price, the selling price and the profit?

Mr. Millan: I do not think that I shall do that, but I shall consider the question if the hon. Gentleman will provide similar information for both Scotland and England in respect of hon. Gentlemen opposite, setting out their purchases and sales of land.

Holiday Homes

Mr. MacCormick: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek powers to prevent the purchase of holiday homes in the Highlands.

Mr. Millan: I am not persuaded that this is necessary.

Mr. MacCormick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a serious problem in the Highlands? The fact that the existing housing stock can be purchased for use for perhaps a few weekends a year makes a significant difference to the housing problems of local people in these areas.

Mr. Millan: I agree that this is a serious problem in some areas, but I do not think that it can be solved by imposing an overall prohibition on people buying second houses. There is, for instance, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) who, I understand, has a second house somewhere in Scotland.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I am sure the Minister will accept that there is a real problem here. Will he consult the Highlands and Islands Development Board


about the suggestion that I made two years ago that it might act as agent for the purchase of houses becoming vacant in small village communities with a view to letting them to people who live there all the year round rather than for only a short time?

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must leave it to me. I intend to call her to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Millan: I appreciate the practical suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman and I shall consider whether something can be done along those lines. If there are other practical suggestions, I shall be willing to consider them.
I should tell the House that we intend at the earliest legislative opportunity to abolish the possibility of improvement grants being obtained for second homes.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister think that that was a worthy observation to make about me, bearing in mind that I go to my constituency every weekend? Does he define all those who have houses in London as having holiday homes'? Does he define many Members who do not have a home in their constituencies as being in some way lacking? Does the hon. Gentleman think that that was a worthy observation to make about me?

Mr. Millan: It was meant to be a jocular remark. Obviously, if the hon. Lady has taken offence at it, I apologise to her.

Expenditure

Mr. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reverse the recent cut-backs in public spending in Scotland.

Mr. William Ross: The future level of public expenditure is one of many questions which the Government are urgently considering.

Mr. Reid: In view of that statement, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the widespread resentment in Scotland that exemption from economic cut-backs should be permitted to allow the breakneck extraction of Scottish oil, but that similar speed is not shown in action for the social and economic welfare of the

Scottish people in education, transport improvements and environmental assistance?

Mr. Ross: There was not an actual exemption, but only a consideration of priorities. This matter inevitably affects the economic and social welfare of Scotland's future. No one would deny that.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of those cutbacks on public expenditure are particularly severe in Central Scotland, where many of the older hospitals were due to be brought up to date and their operating theatres modernised, and that this is an urgent problem to which we are desperately hoping he will give his early attention?

Mr. Ross: I appreciate the difficulties here, but we must deal with the situation as we have found it. It certainly did not improve from the time that the circular was issued until we took over. We must face that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that in any consideration of future cuts in Government expenditure he will continue the policy of the previous Government; that is, where development is vital for the support of North Sea oil in terms of houses, roads, communications and ports, he will follow the previous Government's policy'?

Mr. Ross: Yes, of course we shall, but I hope that we will not do it at the expense of the rest of Scotland.

Feu Duties

Mr. Robert Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to abolish feu duties.

Mr. Barry Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will reintroduce the legislation initiated by his predecessor to abolish feu duty.

Mr. William Ross: Subject to other demands on the parliamentary timetable, I intend to introduce legislation on this subject. I am considering urgently the precise scope of such legislation.

Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider a need for legislation to simplify and reform the system


of land tenure in Scotland, particularly in relation to conveyancing, in an effort to make it easier and less expensive for people purchasing houses?

Mr. Ross: We embarked on this. It is a fairly long process and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the registration of title will follow this other matter. We have this in mind.

Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, despite the inexplicable absence of any mention of this matter from the Gracious Speech, it will be brought forward this Session?

Mr. Ross: That entirely depends on the parliamentary situation. There was an error in the hon. Gentleman's Question, incidentally. The legislation of the last administration did not seek to abolish feu duties. In fact, it deliberately kept them. One of the things we have to consider is whether or not we can extend and strengthen, without completely altering, the Bill which was before us at that time and which, regrettably, was guillotined by the General Election.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will consider the question asked by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) in respect of the lawyer's racketeering in conveyancing on houses? He has a special interest in this matter, I am sure, and will want to put it right as early as possible.

Mr. Ross: I shall be glad to look at anything like this.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least give us an assurance that the new legislation will go as far as the legislation that we were considering when the General Election was announced, namely, that everyone in Scotland will be able to buy out a financial feu if he wishes to do so?

Mr. Ross: It was not I who called the General Election. Probably another week would have seen on the statute book what we admitted was a welcome piece of legislation. I have said that we shall consider whether we can extend and strengthen it—for instance, by trying to get rid of some more feu duties at the time of a sale. From that point of view, we should be extending the area of abolition.

Emigration

Mr. Douglas Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide up-to-date figures, to the most recent convenient date, on gross emigration from Scotland.

Mr. William Ross: The available statistics do not enable accurate estimates of gross emigration to be made but they suggest that the movements of people from Scotland to other parts of the United Kingdom in the year to 30th June 1973 numbered about 61,700, with a corresponding inward movement of about 57,000. They also suggest an outward movement from Scotland to overseas countries of about 20,000 people in the same period, with an inflow of about 12,000.

Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is a serious situation that such a large number of people are leaving Scotland? In future, will he give attention to publishing this figure, which is more valuable to us than the net emigration figure, and give a breakdown of ages, skills and educational attainments in future?

Mr. Ross: I shall see what is possible, but we should not consider one in isolation from the other. The fact that there is such an inward movement as well is of significance. We shall not be able to stop all these movements. We must keep a proper balance and take account of the inward movement as well.

Mr. Tom McMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a new ingredient is coming into the immigration situation in Scotland, namely, that over the last three and a half years, the Tory Government created a new homeless class—the ordinary working men, working hard, who could not get a mortgage or a council house?

Mr. Ross: We must appreciate this. I said a long time ago that two factors would lead to a stabilisation of the population and retain more people in Scotland—first, a job and, second, a home. The extent to which we have contributed towards that situation is an indication of the success in the last year's figures.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that we


welcome having as many people coming into Scotland as possible, as well as fewer leaving, and that this is for the health of Scotland? Scotland is increasingly a good place for people to come and stay and work. Also, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that last year the level of migration from Scotland was halved, and was the lowest since the war?

Mr. Ross: I think that that has already been referred to. One thing which we must take into acount and which we must welcome, although it brings problems, is that there is probably more migration within Scotland than there has been before. I know that people in Glasgow are very concerned about this, although a certain amount of it must go on.

Law of the Sea Conference

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that there is Scottish representation at the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference.

Mr. William Ross: The interests of Scotland as part of the United Kingdom are properly represented in the British delegation.

Mrs. Ewing: May I combine with my question a request that the right hon. Gentleman or one of his assistants should attend in person? I am sure that he is entitled to do so. The reason for that request is that the inshore fishermen of Scotland are in the majority in the industry, unlike the situation in England, and there is a special need for a separate Scottish voice on this matter.

Mr. Ross: In fact, a Scottish fishery expert is part of the permanent delegation. Other officials in my Department will go as necessary. That Scottish expert was in on all the preparatory and organisational sessions of the conference, speaking on behalf of England as well as Scotland. I shall take note of the hon. Lady's other point, but only as necessary.

Mr. Dalyell: While they are about it, why not Shetland representation at Caracas?

Ferry Services

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will accept the principle that ferry crossings to

the Scottish islands are part of the highway system and support them accordingly.

Mr. Millan: No, Sir, but the Government already give substantial capital and revenue assistance towards the operation and development of shipping services to the Scottish islands.

Mr. Stewart: Is the hon. Member aware that in the very north of Norway, inside the Arctic Circle, there are communities with a reasonably prosperous developing existence based purely on the acceptance of this principle by the Norwegian Government? Since this idea is supported by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, among others, will he give attention to adopting it for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland?

Mr. Millan: The Norwegian situation cannot be explained solely on grounds of transport. However, there are already substantial public subsidies to the transport services in the Highlands and Islands.

Mr. Younger: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree with me that the Gaskin Report a year or two ago made it clear that there were areas on the mainland that had more extra costs to cope with than those on the islands? Does he not agree that in the last few years the shipping services to the islands have been transformed, with roll-on/roll-off services almost every day?

Mr. Millan: I do not know that the transformation has been accorded an almost universal welcome, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, although the disabilities that the islands and other remote areas suffer in regard to transport costs present a serious problem, it should not be over-emphasised, and this was brought out in the Gaskin Report.

Highlands and Islands Development Board

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider appointing to the Highlands and Islands Development Board someone from the Scottish trade union movement.

Mr. William Ross: Membership of the board is at present at its statutory maximum. When vacancies arise I will be seeking to appoint those who can best promote the economic and social development of the Highlands and I shall


certainly consider names from the trade union movement as well as others.

Mr. Sillars: Is the Secretary of State aware that when the previous administration removed the trade unionists from the board it caused a great deal of apprehension and concern in Scotland? Because of the rapid industrialisation of certain areas, would it not be a great idea now to swap a trade unionist for the retired rear-admiral?

Mr. Ross: Yes, it would be a good idea when he is due to retire.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the Secretary of State will agree that the important thing about appointments to the Highlands and Islands Development Board is not that they should be trade unionists or rear-admirals but that they should be good people, competent and able to do the job?

Mr. Ross: I entirely agree. That is why, when I first selected the chairman, deputy-chairman and members of this board, I included a trade unionist—Mr. William Scholes—who did an excellent job.

Technical Education (Diploma)

Mr. Harry Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from technical teachers in Scotland regarding qualification for the new diploma in technical education.

Mr. Robert Hughes: My right hon. Friend has received representations from teachers in Renfrewshire against the arrangements for enabling certain technical subjects teachers to qualify for the new Diploma in technical education.

Mr. Ewing: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the arrangements made by his predecessor in office still prevail, whereby it was agreed that the arrangements in force at that time would be suspended pending discussions with technical teachers in Scotland, to establish whether there was any claim on behalf of those technical teachers that they would qualify for the diploma without examination? This is causing those technical teachers great concern.

Mr. Hughes: I can confirm that as a result of the indignation aroused by the proposals a review was undertaken by the

Scottish Education Department. That review had not been completed prior to the election. Therefore, the arrangements are still in suspension but I am studying the matter urgently.

School Leaving Age

Mr. Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had requesting that secondary school pupils should be allowed to leave school on their sixteenth birthday if desired; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Since the raising of the school leaving age a number of bodies, including teachers' associations and education authorities, and a few individual parents, have pressed for this change in the law.

Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that the son of a constituent of mine will miss a very good apprenticeship by one day, but that the father can get over this problem simply by passing the boy over to a relative for two or three months, because the school holiday period is different in another education authority?

Mr. Hughes: I am aware that if any date is chosen there is always someone who falls on the wrong side of that date. It should be borne in mind in connection with employment that there would need to be a change in legislation if the present arrangements were to be changed to allow a child to leave school whilst still of school age. Therefore, the matter is not as easy as perhaps appears at first sight.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the Under-Secretary state whether the present Government will go ahead with the review which the last administration had in mind, of problems arising from the raising of the school leaving, age? If that is the present Government's intention, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind when he conducts that review that it is unacceptable today that a reluctant pupil who has a job to go to should be forced to stay on at school beyond his sixteenth birthday?

Mr. Hughes: I shall have to see what transpires in the next few months. Obviously, something of this kind will always be subject to review and consideration. We want to make arrangements to ensure that pupils attending school are not reluctant attenders beyond


the age of 16. It is the purpose of this Government to make education something which children will want, enjoy and benefit from.

Mr. Lawson: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that whatever he may do in this connection he will certainly ensure that the standards in Scotland in this respect are not lower than they are in England and Wales?

Mr. Hughes: Of course I can give that assurance.

Mr. Steel: I understood that the Under-Secretary of State said earlier that there were good educational reasons for keeping children in school beyond their sixteenth birthday. As I have had many representations from parents, pupils and teachers against this proposition, will the Under-Secretary of State say where he is getting his advice from?

Mr. Hughes: The advantage is that education authorities and schools will be able so to arrange courses as to benefit children and to know when they are going to leave school. It also means that they can round off the children's education properly. That is a major advantage. It is worth while stating that there is pressure from another source that instead of two leaving dates there should be only one. So the pressures are not only one way.

Main Street, Blantyre

Dr. M. S. Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now give approval to the plans submitted by Lanarkshire County Council for the modernisation of Blantyre's Main Street.

Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend is considering a roads scheme incorporating the modernisation of Main Street, High Blantyre, which was submitted by Lanark County Council. No roads scheme affecting Blantyre is before him.

Dr. Miller: May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and ask him whether, when Lanarkshire County Council places before him its plans for the modernisation of Blantyre Main Street itself, he will take the opportunity of paying an early visit to that town to see for himself the necessity for the modernisation of Main Street, which is not a scheme which is going to cost a tremendous amount of money?

Mr. Millan: I think that proposal, when it comes, will come as part of a much larger proposal and I do not think I can comment on it until it has been submitted to us. I hope that, whether in that context or in some other, I shall have an early opportunity of visiting my hon. Friend's constituency.

Education

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up a committee to conduct a major inquiry into all aspects of education in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The education service in Scotland has many problems but I do not believe that a wide-ranging inquiry of this kind would be the best way of proceeding.

Mr. Brown: May I assume that the Government are already committed to continuing the committee of inquiry into truancy? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is more discontent in the teaching profession now, after three and a half years of Conservative Government, than there has been for many years? Surely, in these circumstances there is a case for having a wide-ranging inquiry into all the outstanding problems in Scottish education?

Mr. Hughes: I confirm that the committee of inquiry into truancy and indiscipline will proceed. An announcement of the chairman will be made shortly.
Of course I understand that there is a wide sense of dismay in the teaching profession at the last three and a half years, but I hope that the meetings which my right hon. Friend and I will have with the teachers wil help to repair some of the damage. When we have these discussions no doubt the teachers will want to raise many points, and we shall consider them and discuss them with them.

Mr. Monro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am glad that he is to continue the committee into truancy and indiscipline? Will he confirm whether it is his view that the Scottish Teachers' Service Conditions Committee is the right forum to bring forward problems of the type which have been mentioned?

Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the question of service conditions


is before this committee at the moment. However, if, after these discussions, the teachers' associations wish to raise with me further points for further inquiry, I shall certainly be prepared to meet them and listen to them.

Drumbuie (Public Inquiry)

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reimburse the objectors at the Drumbuie public inquiry in respect of their expenses.

Mr. William Ross: I cannot anticipate my decision on any submission about expenses which may be put before me.

Mr. Gray: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when considering this matter that the assurance given by his predecessor that he would consider the expenses of the objectors during this inquiry led many of them to continue with their objections, and if they do not receive at least a contribution towards their expenses many of them will suffer serious financial embarrassment?

Mr. Ross: It is as well to get right exactly what the previous Secretary of State said. As I understand it, he undertook only to take account of any claim for some expenses that might have been rendered nugatory by the then Government's proposals for a special Bill. That special Bill has not been proceeded with, so the position has changed.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the objectors to the Drumbuie scheme are holiday home Englanders or Lowlanders who would allow the local community to die or emigrate through lack of employment?

Mr. Ross: No doubt there are many like that, but I can assure my hon. Friend that there are many people in the locality who are concerned about the scheme.

Mr. Grimond: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering this matter will he bear in mind that there is widespread feeling that excessive expenses should not be borne by the objectors? Will he also see whether the general level of expenses, the time taken and the method of these inquiries should not be made more economic?

Mr. Ross: I believe we discussed all of this on an earlier Question. All these matters will be considered, but the question of expenses does not arise until after the inquiry.

BREAD SUBSIDY

The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I have discussed with representatives of the bakers the situation arising from their proposals to make increases in bread prices on 25th March following their notifications to the Price Commission.
As the House is aware, it is the Government's intention to introduce food subsidies for certain basic foodstuffs as soon as possible and, against that background, I explained to the bakers that it was my wish to avoid any price increases occurring on the major types of bread. After consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have now agreed with the bakers on arrangements under which there will be no increase on 25th March in the price of almost all loaves weighing 14 ounces or more, which account for nearly 94 per cent. of bread consumption.
I am grateful for the co-operation of the bakers in enabling these arrangements to be made so quickly. Loaves of less than 14 ounces—which comprise smaller speciality loaves such as French bread, bread rolls and most types of starch-reduced bread—are not subject to these arrangements. Therefore, there may be some prices increases for these speciality breads.
The proposals which I am making will involve paying a subsidy, subject to the approval by the House of the powers I shall be seeking in the proposed legislation on prices and subsidies. Estimates will be laid before the House in due course. The estimated cost of avoiding this round of increases in bread prices is of the order of £21 million per annum. My right hon. Friend will be taking this cost into account in formulating his Budget.

Mr. Peter Walker: May I ask the right hon. Lady whether it is her intention, by means of subsidy, to hold the price of bread at its present level irrespective of


further rises in cost? Secondly, may I ask her whether she is satisfied that spending £21 million on an indiscriminate subsidy of this type is the best way to spend such a sum to help those most in need? Finally, is it her intention to make further statements on subsidies for milk, cheese, butter, margarine, cooking fats, eggs, bacon, ham, poultry and flour, which the present Leader of the House said are items which could be subsidised by a Labour Government?

Mrs. Williams: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's first question, I can only say that he will have to wait and see, because neither he nor I can say what will be the movement of wheat prices in the next few months. Further price increases will be subject to notification to the Price Commission, and it will be open to us to engage in further discussions with the industry.
As for the suggestion that the subsidy is indiscriminate, I must say that so-called discriminating subsidies constantly fail on the grounds of take-up. Therefore, we feel that bread, being an essential in the diet particularly of lower-paid workers and pensioners, is very well worth subsidising.
On the question of further subsidies, my right hon. Friend said that these were articles that could be subsidised; it is important to distinguish between "could" and "would". I will make further announcements to the House about any other individual commodities which we intend to subsidise.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her statement will be warmly welcomed as an important counter-inflationary measure and as an immediate fulfilment of our election pledge? Is she also aware that in certain rural areas, including my own constituency of Anglesey, an extra 1p is added to the cost of the loaf? Will she investigate this as a matter of urgency?

Mrs. Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). In reply to his point about the rural areas where transport costs lead to higher prices, we are at present only holding existing prices, but this is necessarily the sort of matter that we shall have in mind in our longer-term consideration.

Mr. Pardoe: While congratulating the right hon. Lady on having emerged from these negotiations and having learned that cheque book government is a good deal more difficult than she thought, may I ask the right hon. Lady to confirm that to have pegged the price of bread in 1970 would by now be costing the British taxpayer £200 million? Does she not think that the £500 million that she has available would be better spent not on indiscriminate or discriminate subsidies but on family allowances? Will she confirm that, having failed to subsidise French bread, George Thomson was right when he said that the French are now subsidising British bread?

Mrs. Williams: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's first point, only the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Party suppose that any kind of government is easy. Some of us know better than that.
The cost of family allowances is a separate matter which we shall be looking at as a Government. We were the last Government to increase family allowances. We believe that family allowances should have been increased in the long period since they were last increased. However, that is not a matter with which I am immediately concerned because bread is important in the diet of pensioners as well as of families.
In reply to the third point, we are allowing the price of the French loaf—a loaf which may be enjoyed by those who receive the salaries of Members of Parliament—to find its own market level. It is no policy of the present Government to subsidise luxury foodstuffs.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend say what will be the effect of this anouncement on household flour, and whether there will be any consequential changes on milling tails for animal feeding stuffs?

Mrs. Williams: In reply to the first part of the question, no general price increase has been notified for flour. Were such a price increase to come, we would consider it sympathetically.
In reply to my hon. Friend's question about feeding stuffs, the subsidy relates only to bread flour used for the commercial production of bread. This by itself will not affect feeding stuff prices.

Mr. Hordern: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the subsidy of £21 million covers only the historic costs of the bakers and does not include the current world price of wheat, and that a further claim by the bakers is likely to be made to the Price Commission in the next six weeks? An estimate of that cost is around £70 million. Will the right hon. Lady allow the subsidy to cover that figure in due course?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the figure which I announced will not cover any further increase apart from the one which we have under consideration. The figure which I am giving deals with the increase at present in the pipeline. Any further increase will have to be notified to the Price Commission and considered by the Commission, as was the case under the previous administration. What will happen in connection with the Government's policy in respect of any further increases is a matter which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate.

Mr. Jay: While warmly welcoming the announcement which my right hon. Friend has made, may I ask her to say whether the Government will also stop the denaturing of good milling wheat by the Intervention Board which is designed to keep prices up and cannot rationally be combined with a policy of subsidies?

Mrs. Williams: I understand that this matter is to be looked at by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in the discussions which he will be having shortly with the EEC. I take my right hon. Friend's point.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the right hon. Lady clarify the position, in the context of what she calls speciality bread —such as wholemeal bread, starch-reduced bread and other dietetically beneficent bread, if these were excluded from subsidy—from the point of view of the health of the nation?

Mrs. Williams: I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's affection for these beneficent breads. Any loaf which weighs either 14 ounces or 28 ounces will be covered by the subsidy, which is necessarily rough and ready mechanism because it has been organised in a short time. What happens in the longer term is another matter, and we shall hold dis-

cussions with the bakers concerning the many varieties of bread which exist.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: May I ask my right hon. Friend a simple question? Does this mean that bread prices will not go up in any shop? Secondly, will she keep an eye on an important fact—namely, ensuring that the English loaf is not suddenly transformed overnight into a speciality French loaf for the worst possible reasons?

Mrs. Williams: I am glad my hon. Friend asked that question because it is important to make the position clear. The subsidy does not cover breads which are 10 ounces and below—such products as bread rolls, French baguets and so forth. It does not cover speciality breads of any kind. Those bakers who do not apply for the subsidy will not be covered by it. I trust that there will be few such, but there may be some.
The simple answer, therefore, to my hon. Friend's question is that the housewife will find that the price of the ordinary 14-ounce and 28-ounce loaves should not be increased. If she finds that it has been increased in one shop, I ask her to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shop around?"]—walk down the road to the next shop. But we are talking about 94 per cent. of all loaves produced, so I am sure the housewife will not be obliged to shop around.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I welcome the right hon. Lady's apparent conversion to shopping around. Does she consider bread to be one of those items which bear most heavily on the family budget? What is the cash benefit per week likely to be to the average family on average bread consumption? How is this likely to be offset by other increases in prices, such as for electricity?

Mrs. Williams: I am not converted to shopping around, which I thought was one of the sillier pieces of advice given by the last Government, since so many will not be obliged to shop around, because 94 per cent. of the loaves will be cause 94 per cent. of the loaves will be covered. Bread is one of the larger items in the retail food price index. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would know that. She will not expect me to anticipate statements, not only of my Department but of other Departments, about prices in the nationalised industries.

Mr. Huckfield: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said, but is she aware that the latest published returns of the big flour millers reveal that Rank Hovis McDougall's showed a profits rise of 17·3 per cent., Spillers-French of 17·3 per cent. and Associated British Foods of 27·3 per cent? In the circumstances, should we be subsidising such companies? Should we not be asking them to reduce their subsidies to the Conservative Party?

Mrs. Williams: It would be useful if they did so. My hon. Friend is putting a fair point but he is looking at profits which do not wholly relate to bread, and we are not at present subsidising flour or any other ingredients which go into products other than bread. The question of profits is a matter which will be considered by the Price Commission, but it will also be studied by the Government. It would not be appropriate for me to go into the matter today.

Sir H. Nicholls: Can the right hon. Lady estimate how much time has been bought by this £21 million? Roughly, when does she expect the price of bread to go up or down as a consequence of the price of the ingredients?

Mrs. Williams: I cannot possibly say when the next increase might be due. We are living through an historic period during which wheat prices have risen very fast. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have said it over and over again. I really do wish sometimes that the Conservative Party would not cheer when we repeat what we said over and over again during the election—that world food prices have risen but that they are by no means the only factor in prices.

Mr. Peter Mills: In the interest of keeping the loaf fairly steady in price, will the right hon. Lady consider the encouragement of the use of more soft wheat in the mixture and get in touch with the Minister of Agriculture to see whether more hard wheat could not be grown in this country? Both these things would help keep the price of the loaf steady.

Mrs. Williams: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there has already been

some shift towards soft wheat in the average grind, by millers over the past year, and we welcome that because it has managed to shave the price increase to some extent. I will take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about hard wheat further, but he also knows that in the use of soft wheat there is a limit on the staying quality of the loaf. But I will pass his suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Kilfedder: What will be the saving to the average family as a result of the subsidy, which I welcome? Can the right hon. Lady ensure that, because of freight charges, the price of bread in Northern Ireland will not be any different from the price in England?

Mrs. Williams: The immediate effect will be to avoid an increase in the food price index of 0·25 per cent. I cannot possibly answer the hon. Gentleman's point about the saving to the average family because this involves each person's individual food budget. But I have given the best indications I can.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the price in Northern Ireland. The subsidy is intended not to meet the additional cost of transport to any part of the United Kingdom but to meet the additional cost of the flour for bread production.

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
I understand that there has been an unfortunate accident in Northern Ireland this morning in which two soldiers have been killed, and a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly expressed very great anxiety. I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is in Belfast. He is staying there this afternoon to investigate the accident and will be here to make a statement in the House tomorrow afternoon about it.

BEAVERBROOK NEWSPAPERS (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Edward Taylor: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the announcement by Beaverbrook Newspapers of its intention to cease publication of its Scottish newspapers in Glasgow".
There can be no doubt that the matter is specific. When I raised the matter with you yesterday, Mr. Speaker, it was on the basis of an application for a merger which had to be put to Her Majesty's Government. However, in the interim we have had the announcement by Beaverbrook Newspapers that it intends to stop publication of its Scottish daily and Sunday newspapers and have Scottish editions printed in Manchester, and to discontinue publication of the Evening Citizen, one of Glasgow's two evening newspapers.
There can be no doubt that the matter is urgent, because as many as 1,800 jobs are involved and it has been indicated that these men could be out of a job within 12 days. In the circumstances, I feel it important and urgent that the House of Commons should be able to consider the implications of the situation, first, for employment in Scotland and, secondly, for the viability of the Scottish Press.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement by Beaverbrook Newspapers of its intention to cease publication of its Scottish newspapers in Glasgow".
The hon. Gentleman made a similar application yesterday. Owing to a misunderstanding, for which I blame no one, I did not realise that he would be making it, and by inference I invited him to make it again today.
My decision under Standing Order No. 9 is a procedural one—that of whether to disrupt the business already fixed, which is a very important matter for all hon. Members.
I am not allowed to give my reasons for a particular decision but I can state some of the considerations which affect me. They are what has been said in the House; what is known to be going on outside the House—negotiations, for example; what is the urgency of a debate in the House; whether such a debate would help or hinder; what other ways are open to hon. Members to pursue the matter; and whether if these are general issues involved, they would be better discussed with more notice. That is not a complete list of the matters which affect my decision, but only some of them.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's application, I have read carefully what took place yesterday in the House, reflected upon the matter this morning and listened carefully to what he has said to me today, and I am afraid that my decision is "No".

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 5TH APRIL

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Anthony Fell.
Mr. Giles Shaw.
Dr. Edmund Marshall.

BILL PRESENTED

RABIES

Mr. Fred Peart, supported by Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Norman Buchan, Dr. David Owen, and Mr. Roland Moyle presented a Bill to make further provision for the prevention and control of rabies, and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 4.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL)

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of bills of aids and supplies, more than one stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting; and that as soon as the Bill has been read a second time the House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

WAYS AND MEANS

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY

Resolved,
That it is expedient to make further provision as to the payments to be made to the Independent Broadcasting Authority by television programme contractors, including provision authorising or requiring the Authority to contract with programme contractors for payments to the Authority and provision for the whole or any part of those payments to be paid, directly or indirectly, into the Consolidated Fund, and to provide for other matters supplementary thereto.— [Mr Alexander W. Lyon.]

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the payments to be made to the Independent Broadcasting Authority by television programme contractors, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of amounts falling to be paid to programme contractors by way of adjusting overpayments made by those contractors.— [Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Dr. John Gilbert and Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY

Bill to make further provision as to the payments to be made to the Independent Broadcasting Authority by television programme contractors; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 5.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — PROPERTY SERVICES AGENCY

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Robert Taylor: I am grateful for the opportunity to open the debate upon the Consolidated Fund Bill, particularly because I want to draw the attention of all hon. Members to the enormous increase in expenditure which has been occasioned by the Property Services Agency, which comes under Class VI, 5 of the Supplementary Estimates.
Before going into the detail of the increase in expenditure it would be correct for me to declare what might be regarded, in some quarters of the House, as an interest, because I am a director of a firm in the building supplies industry. Like all firms in the industry, much of its business emanates from the Property Services Agency. However, in view of the fact that my objectives in raising the matter are critical, and that I intend to delve into expenditure, I hope that all hon. Members will acquit me of any improper motive.
When looking at the expenses of the Property Services Agency we are not talking of insignificant funds; indeed, we are discussing very large amounts. These Supplementary Estimates call for a further £8,160,000 in addition to the Vote earlier in the year. Although the sum of £8 million goes to additional salaries and expenses, a further £160,000 is expenditure already incurred on furniture, equipment and other supplies. If we add these two Supplementary Estimates to the original Estimates of £56,992,000 for salaries and another £4,832,000 for furniture and fittings we find that the expenses for the current year of the Property Services Agency are only £16,000 short of a total of £70 million.
The Property Services Agency was set up, so far as the House is aware, only on 5th May 1972, when it was announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of


the Opposition, in his then capacity as Prime Minister, by way of a Written Answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison).
In view of the expenditure involved hindsight might suggest that it would have been preferable for the House if the announcement had been made in a manner which would have enabled us to have had a debate on the subject, or alternatively, through an announcement which could have been open to oral questioning.
In the Written Answer my right hon. Friend set out clearly the purposes for which the Property Services Agency had been set up. I shall quote from the answer in column 217 of HANSARD for 5th May. The then Prime Minister stated that it had been decided:
to establish a Property Services Agency, forming an integral part of the Department of the Environment, for the provision to other Government Departments of property management services, building construction and maintenance, and the appropriate supplies.
He further stated:
It is intended that wherever possible units of accountable management will be introduced."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 5th May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 217.]
It is my belief that that Written Answer raises some questions which should be brought forward, having regard to this additional money which we shall have to vote to the Consolidated Fund tonight. First, if the principal purpose was to relieve other Departments of certain costs, which Votes of the Consolidated Fund show a reduction to compensate for the £70 million worth of expenditure which has been incurred by the Property Services Agency? Secondly, have any units of accountable management been introduced, and, if so, how many of these units are represented in the total of £70 million worth of expenditure; who has seen the accounts; and are they available to hon. Members?
Thirdly, how was it possible to underestimate only nine months ago by the sum of £8 million the salaries required by the Property Services Agency and at the same time to overestimate by £1,400,000 the amount forthcoming for other Departments for work done by the agency—in other words to underestimate on the expenses by £8 million and to

overestimate on the work expected to be done by as much as £1,400,000? That £1,400,000 represents fees that should have been paid to the agency by other Departments.
Fourthly, how is it that we are expected to approve in the Estimates an increase of no less than 50 per cent. under the heading of "Travelling, etc"? This increase of 50 per cent. is since the original Estimate was prepared for the Consolidated Fund Bill earlier in the financial year.
I note that the Supplementary Estimates state that this additional travelling expenditure relates to underestimation of travelling expenses on transfer from Class VI, 20, but that class and subsection relate to research and, as far as I know, no research establishments have been transferred or moved to different locations. Therefore, that particular footnote to the accounts seems to be inexplicable.
Fifthly, I have difficulty in understanding a certain part of the accounts. On page 205 of the Supplementary Estimates we read that there is a reduction in the surplus that was expected on receipts from the provision of supplies at scale charges. The new figure is £11 million instead of the previous £12,490,000. The economic classification says that current expenditure on goods and services amounts to £1,650,000, and from that is deducted the surplus appropriations which I have just mentioned. If the surplus was less than originally budgeted for, it seems to me that the difference in the figures should not be deducted but should be added to obtain the true figure of expenditure on those goods and services. In other words, under the section head "Economic Classification", instead of there being a balance of £160,000, the two figures should be added, instead of one being subtracted from the other, and the true expenditure should be £3,140,000.
Unless we have careful control over the agency the expenditure is likely to increase at a substantial rate year by year, and I do not expect to sec any reduction in the votes of other Departments. I believe that the intention to create a super-agency of this nature was completely misguided. I am open to persuasion otherwise, but it is my view that if the agency continues on its present lines it will consume a greater and greater amount of available resources of


manpower and accommodation—the agency occupies many offices in London—and of revenue which could be used by the Exchequer in other directions.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that the matter will be carefully examined and kept under careful control, and that he will give an explanation of the matters I have raised.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Michael Latham: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) has said. I do so in no spirit of criticism of the Property Services Agency. There was an element of criticism in my hon. Friend's speech with which I do not entirely wish to associate myself. I agree with the decision of my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister to set up the agency in the last Parliament. The agency and the Department of the Environment are well served by as fine a public servant as one could wish in Mr. Cuckney as head of the agency, and the agency has a good future before it. I was glad to see a rationalisation of many of the property activities of the Department.
But my hon. Friend has done a service in raising certain matters which I hope the Minister will clarify. There is no doubt that the agency is a very powerful and large organisation within the building industry. Here I repeat the declaration of interest I made in my maiden speech 10 days ago. I am a consultant in the building industry.
I believe that the agency employs about 66,000 staff. The contracts it places runs into thousands of millions of pounds. Therefore, a proper scrutiny of its work by the House is clearly desirable.
I should like assurances on three points, the first concerning accountable management. I have never been satisfied with the explanations I have heard of how that is to be achieved. One of my ideas about accountable management is that those concerned should have the right to hire and fire, subject to the normal procedures and consultation. It is not clear to me how accountable management in that sense can be achieved within what is basically a Civil Service body.
Secondly, I should like an assurance that there can be no question of the agency's going into the contracting busi-

ness. Its relationship to the industry has always been to let out work on a proper contractual basis to building firms. I hope that that will continue, and that there will be no question of setting up a Department direct labour force to carry out new construction. The Department does maintenance work on airports, and that is not criticised, but I hope that there is no question of a direct labour force for new construction being set up by the agency.
My third point concerns the agency's tendering policy. The industry made its views clear to the previous Government, which announced a major concession on firm price tendering. The industry had asked that the previous two-year restriction on firm price tendering should be lifted and that clients in the public sector should be allowed one year of firm price tendering, subject to certain clauses outlined by the National Economic Development Council. I hope that that will continue to be the agency's policy, because a two-year firm price tendering policy in the present climate of the building industry is unsatisfactory. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the agency will operate only a 12-month system, subject to the break clauses outlined by the National Economic Development Council.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Oakes. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) wishes to intervene, it will be more convenient if he speaks before the Minister, but I cannot call hon. Members unless they rise.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I am obliged to you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. I had thought that so many hon. Members would rise that I did not have to hurry.
While the House is debating the subject of the Property Services Agency, I should like to draw attention to the position of embassies abroad. The agency is to a large extent responsible for those embassies, and I am not sure that the system has yet settled down in the best possible way. To begin with, it must be agreed that the agency, at any rate in its activities abroad, is not, and cannot be, a commercial undertaking. There can be no buying, selling or renting of property on a basis which could give an income.


Provision of embassies is something which the country must afford its representation abroad, and to call it a commercial matter is not realistic.
We can be represented abroad either more or less expensively. In the past there has been a great bias in favour of renting. The Treasury—and few Governments have the guts to say "Boo" to the Treasury—obviously wishes to rent, because the expenditure in any one year is much less, and, therefore, the figures look better. However, it is clear that in an age of inflation it is not very sensible to rent when one can buy. The agency now tends to go towards purchase rather than renting of the foreign properties which we have to use. That is a good thing. I hope that the Minister, in deciding what should be done about our proper representation abroad, will have a bias in favour of buying, and, if necessary, selling the property again if it is not in the correct place or is not of the correct size or quality. In the long term that must be much better.
It has been clear to almost everyone for a long time that in central London there is a big difference between the prices which we pay for rented Government accommodation and the prices at which we could buy and build such accommodation. Until very recently our insistence on renting at enormous rents—£12 per square foot and so on—when there was the possibility of building in central London at about a third of that amount was almost a public scandal. I presume that, by its very name, the Property Services Agency will tend towards buying rather than renting. I think that that is a good thing and that the Minister should urge the agency in that direction, and especially abroad where inflation in many places is more serious than here.
In a minor way there are quite a lot of irritants to our diplomats who serve abroad in accommodations which are bought or hired. The responsibility for decoration is, so to speak, a mixed one. The PSA pays and the ambassador, or whoever it may be in the post abroad, chooses. Often there is a large lack of liaison between what the ambassador, the ambassador's wife or the commander-in-chief's wife wants and what the PSA thinks that they should have. Difficulty

arises not necessarily over cost but on a question of taste.
It has often been found in the past that the rule that the equipment in a house or the furniture and the furnishings shall be sent out from this country has been unreasonably expensive. It is difficult to send back from Central America the exact specification of a curtain or a lampshade. It is difficult to avoid mistakes being made. It is galling for people abroad when things do not arrive on time and when sometimes they do not arrive at all.
In the course of my peregrinations as a Minister around South America I came across a number of instances where such difficulties had been very trying for the people in posts abroad. For example, the second man in our embassy in a certain country had had not a stick of furniture in his house for three months. The only way in which he had been able to live was by the ambassador loaning him half his furniture. Such difficulties arise when sending furniture and equipment such a long way. It is not as if they were being sent from just around the corner.
I do not believe that liaison has been all that we could have achieved. There are two ways in which it could be improved. First, somebody from this country who is sent abroad on his country's service should be able to go across the river to see the headquarters of the PSA. He should be able to meet the person who will be responsible for furnishing the embassy or whatever the building may be. Such people should be able to liaise with those in this country who will make such arrangements. I hope that the agency will extend an invitation to those who have been posted abroad to make such liaison before they leave. They should try to get to know each other personally.
Second, it would be much to the advantage of the country if the visits from agency assistants to embassies in places abroad could be more frequent and made by more senior staff. There have been reported to me occasions when those who have been able to go out—no doubt they have been worthy young gentlemen but they have been in their early 20s—have had no apparent qualification for furnishing large embassies and like buildings. I dare say that the Minister is constantly doing that sort of thing but most of us


do not furnish palaces in our normal course of life. It is not to be expected that a young fellow in the Civil Service, who has joined following a very good examination from some dark university like Cambridge or some such hopeless place—

Mr. Michael Latham: Disgraceful!

Mr. Kershaw: —could possibly know how best to furnish the first floor of an embassy. That is not something, with respect, that you, Mr. Speaker, or I come across all the time. It might be desirable that those who go out from the PSA should be senior staff. They should be experienced in the matters which I have described. They should be able to compare one embassy with another. They should be able to compare one commander-in-chief's house and one secretary's house with another. They should know the sort of things which are expected and which are appropriate and those which will last.
It seems that in these matters too little is left to local initiative. It is very difficult from SE1 to decide what sort of lampshades are suitable in Panama City. It is invariably found when such goods arrive at the other end that they are unsuitable because they are good food for maggots, ants and other things which flourish in that part of the world, or that they are the wrong shape or in some way unsatisfactory. Such fittings are expensive to send and they take a great deal of time to arrive at their destination. As shipping by sea becomes more and more difficult it becomes increasingly difficult to ensure that they arrive when they are wanted.
Electrical apparatus is often different in different parts of the world. It is idle for the PSA to insist that stoves, or whatever it may be, shall be of a certain quality. Such goods may be well known in Lambeth but not in Costa Rica. I hope that a larger measure of local expenditure will be allowed to local people. I believe that the PSA is a sensible way of setting about these matters, but undoubtedly the frustrations caused to those who are on the receiving end abroad are fairly great.
It is a fact which perhaps we forget in the United Kingdom that those who serve in the Armed Forces or the diplomatic service have sometimes, by the end of their married life, been in over 30

houses. During their career the first year in any house has probably been occupied in some kind of refurnishing or refurbishing. When such matters are in hand the people abroad must be in communication with the PSA, as it now is, all the time. These matters loom very large indeed.
I believe that the efficiency of the PSA and the general liaison between it and our representatives abroad can contribute considerably to the way in which our people abroad discharge their responsibilities and the way in which they are regarded. I hope that the Minister, during the course of his term of office, which I hope will be a long one personally but a short one politically, will be able to visit some of our accommodations abroad. It is important for him to see the way in which these important things are done. I am sure he will realise how well we do them on the whole. However, there are gaps which I hope he will be able to fill.

4.19 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) for raising this important matter. I agree with him and his hon. Friends that it is not, and has not been, sufficiently debated in the House, given the considerable amount of expenditure over which it has control and its importance in the whole of the Government's property services.
The hon. Member criticised the way in which the announcement of this important department was made on 5th May 1972. The Government do not bear responsibility for that. The announcement was made in a Written Answer and on a Friday morning to boot. That is how the birth of the Property Services Agency was announced. The then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, used a phrase which two Members have used today—namely,
It is intended that wherever possible units of accountable management will be introduced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 217.]
So far as practicable that has been done by the Property Services Agency. The main progress has been made in the supplies division. A computerised management accounting system is now being prepared as part of the process leading to the eventual provision of a trading fund.


I understand that Opposition hon. Members are very much in favour of such a fund.
No other self-contained units of accountable management have been set up within the PSA but a good deal has been done to improve management accountability generally. The definition of aims and objectives for the various directorates and the introduction of a computerised staff costing system whereby the resource costs involved in designing new works projects may be compared with budgets based on outside professional fee scales are examples of what is being done to procure wherever possible the introduction of units of accountable management.
The hon. Member said that the PSA management could not hire or fire civil servants. That is true, but accountable management achieved by better management methods makes the managers concerned far more aware of their costs.
There is no intention that the PSA will go in for new works contracting. No changes are envisaged on the question of firm price tendering.

Mr. Michael Latham: Before the Minister leaves the question of accountable management, will he say a little more about a likely date of introduction of the trading fund?

Mr. Oakes: That relates only to the supply division of the PSA, not to the agency generally. I do not know at this stage. That will be a matter for my right hon. Friend to act on by Order in Council under the Trading Funds Act. I do not know whether it is his intention to do so or when lie would intend to do it, but if my right lion. Friend expresses any intention in the matter I shall ensure that the hon. Member is made aware of it by letter in advance.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West said at the outset that he was seeking to draw attention to the enormous increase in expenditure by the PSA. Unfortunately at the present time there are large increases in expenditure in all matters and they arise mainly from the rise in the cost of land and building. The various increases are not peculiar to the PSA but have had to be met by all local government and by the country generally over the last year or two. That period

covers the entire existence of the agency, which came into being on 5th May 1972.
There are obvious advantages of scale in allowing central provision to be made, in the form of the PSA, of Government accommodation needs, especially in matters covered by the supplies division where bulk contracts can be placed by the agency. There has been no attack today on the principle of the PSA. It was not expected that savings would suddenly show up in the Votes, because these services were previously provided on a central basis by the Ministry of Public Building and Works. We cannot expect, therefore, to see a dramatic saving in the Vote in so short a period.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West asked about the figure of £8 million and I believe I can give a most satisfactory explanation about it. Of the £8 million, £4·3 million reflects the stage 2 pay award for PSA staff. That was an inevitable payment for the agency to have to face and it accounts for more than half of the figure about which the hon. Member is complaining. In addition increased consultants' fees accounted for £2 million. As the hon. Member will know from his experience of the industry, a consultant is paid largely on the costs of the building and the construction. If those costs rise, as they have risen over the last year. the consultancy fees automatically rise too. There is a much smaller sum of £700,000 for increased agency payments, for example, to drawing office staff and for ancillary professional work of that kind.
The hon. Member was most concerned about the shortfall in receipts, estimated at £1 million. It arose largely because the PSA does quite a lot of work for the Post Office, although the Post Office is now a separate body and is not a Government Department. Because of the vagaries of the building, industry, of which the hon. Member will be aware, a lot of work which it was expected would be done was not done because of shortage of labour and materials. This shortfall of £1 million in about £25 million was not bad estimating, simply bad luck. The work was not carried out—not through negligence on the part of the PSA but through difficulties of supply in the building industry.
The hon. Member also asked about the supply division. That is a much narrower


point. He said that within the division there was an underestimate of £245,000 in the general administration expenses. This comes under Class VI Vote 6 Subhead B. It relates not to salaries but to general administration expenses such as travelling expenses, postal charges, telephone charges and even office cleaning. They all go under the general head. It is. therefore, a matter not of overspending but of underestimating by the agency. This year is the first time that Subhead B has appeared under this Vote as a separate item and it is the first time that separate accounts were done for Vote purposes in this way. The underestimate was made and revealed itself only during the course of the year, which explains the Supplementary Estimate dealing with this narrow point.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) raised an interesting point about the work of the PSA in connection with properties not only in Britain but abroad. The latter is not basically my responsibility. It is much more a matter for the Foreign Office. But my Department is the central Department for the PSA and as such is answerable for it in the House. The hon. Member said that he hoped that during the course of my Ministerial existence I might have the advantage of seeing some of the work of the PSA abroad. I hope that he is right, but I am sure that he is not. Most of the work of the Department, alas, concerns much more mundane and domestic matters than travel abroad. Nevertheless, it is something I would be delighted to look into.

Mr. Kershaw: I can assure the Minister that if he were to take a personal interest in this matter it would be very much appreciated by the members of the Foreign Office. As he says, his Department is answerable in the House on matters concerning the PSA, but it may be more desirable for a ministerial eye to be cast over the agency's work, and I can recommend the Seychelles in the spring.

Mr. Oakes: I was in Mauritius in the autumn and that was delightful. I passed over the Seychelles on the flight.
The hon. Gentleman referred to accommodation overseas. I entirely agree—and so does the agency—that it is far better to purchase than to rent wherever possible, but that must be subject to vary-

ing circumstances in different parts of the world and to the overall restraints on public expenditure at any given time. The hon. Gentleman will be interested in the aspect of the work of the PSA concerned with diplomatic buildings. The agency is negotiating a site in Kensington Palace Gardens for the Russian Embassy. Likewise, the authorities in Moscow are making provision for a site for the British Embassy because they wish it to be sited in a different place. Negotiations are going on for the sites but each country will be responsible for building the embassy when the site is obtained.
I understand that close liaison exists between the agency and the Foreign Office to ensure that the wrong furniture is not sent to an embassy. Mistakes may occur from time to time but these, we hope, will be eradicated by the present close liaison and possibly even closer liaison in the future.
The amount of discretion allowed for local purchases to be made has been considerably increased. This means that there does not need to be a reference back to London on items which are minor and perhaps trivial from a cost point of view but are important for the comfort of diplomatic residencies abroad. There is now much greater scope for local provision.
I think that I have answered most of the questions that have been asked. I welcome the opportunity——

Mr. Michael Latham: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the firm price tendering point I raised and the PSA's attitude to it? Alternatively, he may prefer to write to me about it.

Mr. Oakes: I mentioned that no change was envisaged at present on firm price tendering. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument about the vagaries of the present situation. I will go into it with the Department and write to him. At present no change is envisaged.
Although the debate has ranged a little wider than Class VI, Vote 6, Subhead B, I make no apology because it is important that the House should have the opportunity given by the initiative of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West to debate the PSA, which serves the country well and saves the taxpayer quite a lot of money.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY (PRODUCTIVITY)

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the important subject of productivity in the mining industry. I do so as a man who has spent 23 years working in the industry, first as a haulage worker, then as a face worker and finally, for 13 years, as a colliery manager.
Although we had several debates on the coalmining industry in the last Parliament, this is the first time I have spoken on that subject from the Floor of the House. I therefore want to take advantage of the opportunity to be as helpful and as constructive as possible to the industry in reaching a solution to the energy crisis which faces us.
Like other industries, the mining industry has many problems, but most people would agree that the key problem, certainly for the immediate future, is productivity. The House will be aware of the substantial increases in productivity which the mining industry has achieved since 1960. The productivity rate has more than doubled. It is nearly two and a half times the 1960 rate. There has been a steady and substantial improvement resulting mainly from two broad developments.
The first is mechanisation, particularly at the face. Money has been poured in, and workmen and management have adapted themselves successfully in a remarkably short space of time to this revolution in the technical methods of mining coal. There have also been mechanical improvements elsewhere, both underground and on the surface. But the mechanical process has now reached its limit, certainly in the short term, although I know that there may be long-term possibilities. For example, we may one day see the Westminster scratch-crawler mark 1 performing on the faces of British collieries, but in the immediate period of the next five years most people would agree that improvements in productivity by further mechanisation are not very likely, because the coalfaces and other parts of the coal mines are fairly fully mechanised.
The second development over the last 15 years which has led to substantial im-

provements in productivity is not such a happy one. That is the improvement of productivity by closing less efficient collieries. That is not a process to be followed. If it were followed to its ultimate conclusion we should end up with a British mining industry of remarkably high productivity with all the coal coming from one colliery.
The need now is not only to increase productivity but also to maintain capacity. We need improved productivity and larger capacity and, ideally, improved capacity as well as improved productivity. We should no longer deceive ourselves, as we may have done in the past, that there have been real increases in productivity when, in fact, those increases are more apparent than real. It would be interesting to have from the National Coal Board the figures of improved productivity over the past 15 years at the 260 or so collieries still in existence.
There does not seem to be a great opportunity before us in the next five years to improve productivity from either of those two developments. We therefore have to look elsewhere. There are great benefits to be derived in improved productivity from what I might call rather grandly the sociological development of the industry. Many hard-headed, practical mining men regard such sociological talk as being airy-fairy, woolly and soft-centred. They fail to see its relevance to the earthy realities with which they are faced each day. But over the last 15 years there have been occasions when it has been very useful. I have a colleague who was an eminent mining engineer in the Lancashire coalfield and spent his whole life in that coalfield. When, after he retired, I asked him which of the 20 collieries was most likely to continue in the future, he said, "If you had asked me three months ago I would have said Mosley Common, but unfortunately it closed two months ago". Technically, it should have been the best colliery in the coalfield but it was closed for what I loosely call sociological reasons.
My colliery, in 1959, when collieries began to be closed, should have been technically one of the first collieries to be closed. It had thin seams, it was wet, gassy and faulted, it had a bad roof, and no money had been spent on it. Everything was wrong. I hope that I am not being arrogant or presumptuous, but I


pride myself that the colliery has survived and is still in production to this day. I like to think that it has survived because its management was sociologically sound. It was a lateral management, very different from the customary vertical structure of management in most collieries, certainly in the 1950s and perhaps even to this day. Latterly, my colliery also had the advantage of producing coking coal. I am convinced, however, as is the union at the colliery, that the real secret lay in the harmony at the pit. There is a corporate drive and will to win among everyone at the colliery. This has contributed substantially to its continuation.
Nationally the problem is to translate into practical terms this loose phrase "improved sociology" and to do it quickly. The answer has to be based on wages, not simply the level of wages—a blanket increase of so many per cent.—but rather upon changes in wage payment systems. I know that the finesse and sophistication needed to change social attitudes at collieries, as in other institutions, are not to be found in wage systems, which are mechanical things. They are not ideal substitutes for the human quality of finesse. Nevertheless, a great deal can be done along these lines, especially when speed is as important as it is now. Whatever is done must be done carefully and skilfully, because no one can afford to make mistakes here.
I want to look at wages and their connection with productivity. I ask the House to forgive me if, to do so, I go briefly into the recent history of mining wages. In 1947 face wages were paid largely on a piecework system. Although wages doubled in the first 15 years of nationalisation the increases were the result mainly of negative, grudging and defensive negotiations by management. Most certainly they were not inspired by the intentions and hopes of the Parliament of 1945, when it legislated for the creation of a nationalised coal industry.
The piecework system which prevailed over much of the industry for the first 15 years or so after nationalisation was an odd kind of piecework. The wage that the man actually received at the end of the week could be divided into two main elements—the prescriptive payment and the discretionary payment. Prescriptive payments were those prescribed by formal

agreements or long custom—for example, tonnage, rate for filling coal, and for water, in many parts of the country, and so on.
Discretionary payments were those negotiated weekly—or allowed—for all situations not covered by prescriptive payments, for example, allowances for bad roof faults, steep ground, and so on. These payments were not, or should not have been, of a repetitive nature. They should have varied as conditions varied. They were often negotiated at deputy level, sometimes at overman or under-manager level, but rarely at manager level and only in exceptional circumstances at any level outside the colliery.
They were frequently conceptual in nature and sometimes openly called allowance payments. Their main justification was as a damping factor to avoid excessive fluctuations in earnings if performance, tonnage or yardage, or whatever, fluctuated excessively. There is no doubt that they had a legitimate function to perform in this respect. Fifteen years after nationalisation, and as a direct result of the defensive approach of management towards wage negotiations, and the increasing use of conceptual payments, there remained some conventional hand-filled faces where workmen were paid on a formal contract little changed since vesting day, but where the actual wage had doubled. The increase in earnings had been largely achieved by an increase in the discretionary element of the wage, so that this formed a large part—up to 50 per cent.—of the whole.
That had been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the number of payable variables and of officials able to influence the week's final wage level. This in turn had led to the abuse of the discretionary damping factor and to the odd phenomenon of the so-called "ratchet effect" and wage creep. The possibility of improved wages control, that is the more rational—although not necessarily frozen—correlation of wages and performance, or of cost or profit, or with or without any other objective criterion, had been weakened. The emphasis had been put upon highly personalised negotiations at junior level.
Another important characteristic of a too readily negotiable contract when allied to a straight piece-rate system—a


system with a large conceptual content—was the ease with which the need for cutting production costs could be translated into the need for cutting wages rather than improving productivity. On occasion this has even taken formal shape in the mining industry. For example, the sliding scale of the 1880s tied wages to the selling price of coal.
It would be a nice economic point to consider how far the lack of improvement in productivity and technical innovation prior to 1939 could be traced to this mentality. By 1960 there was an acknowledged need in mining for an improved system of incentive payments of greater precision and rationality. Mr. Ford, the then President of the NUM, spoke at the annual conference in 1963 about the possible ideal of a day-wage for face workers, but pointed out, wisely I thought, that in an industry so accustomed to traditional wage bargaining it was necessary to advance a step at a time and with much serious thought before abandoning completely the tradition of payment by results.
In the event, as we all know, the national power-loading agreement was reached in the mid-1960s. A fixed weekly wage was established and the industry has worked under it ever since. It has always been my view—I say this as one who, in principle, supports the idea of a fixed weekly or monthly wage—that the industrial attitudes of management and workers in the mining industry were not sufficiently sophisticated to make a complete success of the jump to the power-loading agreement.
Having said that, I acknowledge that much success was achieved by it and I pay tribute to the mining fraternity for the part they played in achieving that success. Now, after Wilberforce and this winter's dramatic events, we are clearly at a turning point. Whatever wage negotiations are taking place between the NCB and the NUM it is obvious they can have a profound influence on the future success and productivity of the industry.
We understand that following the Wilberforce recommendations, and for other reasons, some kind of incentive bonus scheme may be accepted in due course. I welcome this, as do, I believe,

most people in the industry. That is why I have sketched out some of the dangers which resulted from the old piecework schemes in the industry. We must be careful not to fall into them once again. The search must be for an incentive scheme combining as many as possible of the advantages of piecework and day-wage with as few as possible of their disadvantages.
To my knowledge one or two schemes have been used or partly used in the mining industry in the early 1960s. Certainly there was one colliery which, in the teeth of opposition from the senior management of the National Coal Board at the time, persevered with and ran at least partly an incentive scheme for a couple of years designed to eliminate the traditional disadvantages of piecework. I hope that the House will forgive me for making this personal reference to my own colliery. But we at Bersham—the National Union of Mineworkers' lodge, my management colleagues and I—felt at the time and still feel that we achieved a major breakthrough in wages systems for the mining industry.
I will not bore the House with the technicalities, but the scheme combined an incentive for the whole colliery which would have been applicable individually to all collieries, whether they were difficult ones to work or easy ones, where the wage level could be determined centrally at national level so that there should not be great discrepancies in the wages paid at different collieries. It established an equity between one colliery and another which overrode the geological and other differences which so often in the past have vexed negotiators, and it rewarded the imaginative and intelligent use of skills now becoming so vitally important to this highly mechanised industry.
I understand from our newspapers that there is some difficulty about the question whether an incentive scheme should be based locally, regionally or nationally. However, the method used at Bersham could be used with enough flexibility to achieve a satisfactory compromise in this respect.
I imagine that the working papers and the arguments of 13 years ago at Bersham are still recorded and available. I urge the National Coal Board and the NUM to use these and any other experience which may be available at other collieries


to look in some depth into wages systems their psychology and their relation not only to productivity but also to safety and to industrial harmony.
It is surprising that, despite the long and sometimes acrimonious traditions of wages negotiations in the mining industry, there is in mining literature little discussion in depth of the theory, general principles and psychology of wages payments. Since, as I suspect, this is the new development to follow in the hope of genuine increases in productivity over the next five years, I trust that I shall not be thought presumptions in commending this course of action to my good friends in the industry.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Adam Butler: I must apologise to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Tom Ellis) for not being here to listen to the whole of his speech. I have a strong constituency interest, and I listened with great attention to what he said in the last few minutes of it.
I intervene briefly to support what the hon. Gentleman said about the experiment which ran for a short while some 13 years ago on a colliery efficiency scheme. This is what I have advocated in this House on a number of occasions and have discussed at some length with miners in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman asked both the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers to look closely at the arrangements which prevailed then, and I endorse that heartily. The hon. Gentleman might even do me the courtesy of letting me have any details that he has.
I believe that this approach is the only one which will work. A national productivity scheme of the sort that the NUM insists upon cannot work because there is no adequate incentive involved. I do not believe that a regional system can work. Equally, a face system will not work because of the difficulties in the working of a single face and between different faces in one pit. But on a colliery basis there should be sufficient colliery feeling and a spirit of working together amongst the men to make them take the rough with the smooth and respond to the added incentive which should be involved in a scheme of this sort.
I imagine that what used to operate at the colliery referred to by the hon. Gentleman was that there was a normal level of production associated with standard conditions and that on that was based the productivity scheme which operated. I believe that this is a fair arrangement, and I would like to see it introduced.
I am reinforced in the view that we should return as soon as possible to such schemes in this vital industry by the fact that when day work was introduced in my own area on road development work, production fell substantially. What is more, although some hon. Members opposite criticise the National Coal Board for employing outside contractors whose employees earn high wages, I am told that despite their high wages they have cost the NCB less per yard of development work than union members simply because they have been on piecework and have been prepared to work for their reward.
If we can produce a truly effective scheme on a colliery basis, I should like to give it all the encouragement that I can.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) and the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) will forgive me if I do not pursue their productivity arguments.
I wish to begin by congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friends on the prompt way that they have set out to tackle some of the problems facing the mining industry. I do not suggest that the new wage agreement will solve all the problems, but clearly it opens the door to a new future for the industry.
I agree with the stress that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham laid on the fact that capital investment alone will no longer provide a solution. The basic future must depend for many years to come on the necessary manpower being available.
Since the new wage agreement came into force a number of my constituents have expressed an interest in returning to the mining industry, and I believe that the problems of the industry have become very urgent in view of the additional energy which is required by the nation.
For that reason, I feel that it is vital that we should look at the development of the industry not only in the long term but also in the short term. If we look at the short-term problems, the greatest need is to speed up the expansion of existing collieries wherever possible.
In the Cannock Chase area of my constituency the three major collieries—Lea Hall, Littleton and Cannock 5—are all subject to plans for expansion. The Lea Hall Colliery, which has already reached the 2 million tons mark, is being talked about as the first colliery in Britain to reach the 3 million tons mark in the foreseeable future. There is a £5 million plus expansion scheme at Littleton, and expansion is also envisaged at Cannock 5.
It is essential that at these and similar collieries, in view of the urgency of the energy situation, there should be a greater speeding up of all these development plans. In my constituency alone such developments could provide several thousand more jobs in mining.
In the long term it is equally important to speed up development. The major development which is given great prominence is at Selby. However, bordering on my constituency is another important development near the Cannock Chase area where I understand that there ate coal reserves of hundreds of millions of tons. Certain probing and seismographic work is already being done in that area. I stress the need to speed up this type of development not only in that area but generally, and to tie up some of these major developments—I cannot speak for the Selby position, but I know the situation in Staffordshire—with some of the other social factors operating in the area.
The Staffordshire County Council has outlined a proposal for some type of mini-town development of about 3,500 homes in the Cannock Chase area. I am sure that the new Cannock Chase district is anxious that many of those homes should be developed by the local authority. If such development takes place, the authority must avoid providing little boxes which are divorced from the community in general involving people in travelling several miles to the West Midlands conurbation to find work.
If we are to provide jobs for about 5,000 people, clearly the policy that the

local authority has operated extremely successfully in the past of providing a diversification of new industries will not alone solve the problem. There is a need here for at least one major source of additional employment to provide many or the jobs required. Therefore, it would he most useful if there could be a tie up between the possible mining development near Cannock Chase on the one hand and the development of housing near Cannock Chase itself on the other. I understand that the time scales for the two developments are likely to be somewhat similar.
I am pointing to some of the problems facing my constituency merely as examples of some of the wider difficulties facing the coal industry. The two wider aspects, as I see them, are the need to speed up the short-term development of existing collieries where such development is possible, as this is the only way that we shall solve our short-term energy problems, and the need in the long term to tie up the more major developments in the coal industry with some of the other likely social developments in the areas affected.

5.5 p.m.

Dr. Michael Winstanley: I intervene briefly in the debate to call attention to one aspect of productivity in mining which has not so far received any mention but which, from my experience, ought to be mentioned not once but over and over again—namely, health and safety.
My involvement in mining is varied. I come from a mining family of many generations. Indeed, some of my family will be known to hon. Members. My uncle, George Winstanley, developed the Winstanley experiment which first demonstrated the cause of underground explosions. He was in charge of the Prince of Wales Miners Relief Fund, which conditioned his attitude to life and politics in many ways.
I have been brought up in a mining atmosphere surrounded by people who have worked in and understood the industry. I have practised and still practise in a mining area in the region of Mossley Common colliery, to which reference has already been made, and for some years I worked as a surgeon in a hospital in the middle of a mining area.
In my professional medical life I have witnessed the influence of the dangers inherent in mining and their damaging effect on health and productivity. It is well known that in certain areas accidents tend to have more severe results than might be expected. There are understandable reasons. An accident underground is very frightening and alarming, as anyone who has been down a mine knows. When dealing with people in hospital who have been involved in accidents underground, I have found that they are more shocked and ill than might be expected from a similar accident on the surface.
Mining cannot be described as pleasant or enjoyable, though many miners enjoy the comradeship, and so on, underground. However, it is not the kind of work to which people are desperately anxious to return when they are not feeling fit. My experience, both in hospital and in general practice, is that when a miner has been ill his enthusiasm for getting back to his job is affected by the conditions in which he will have to work.
I have treated people who have changed from mining possibly because the local colliery has closed. People often say that miners cannot be retrained for other jobs. Of course they can be retrained. I know many miners doing excellent jobs in industry as machine operators, and so on. It is interesting to observe how ex-miners' attendance rates improve when they are in new and different occupations. The difference is quite startling.
I am not competent to speak on bonus systems, different rates of pay or productivity, but whatever rearrangements are made in methods of payment we will not fundamentally increase productivity to the level that we would like unless we substantially improve the working and safety conditions of those who have to get the coal, because they have an effect not only on health but on morale in general.
I have been down many pits. Considering miners' working and safety conditions, I wonder whether, in the second half of the twentieth century, we ought to be thinking about new methods of extracting coal. When I see people who have developed bent knee, miner's nystagmus, who are crippled with injuries of one kind or another, coughing with pneumoconiosis and anthrocosis, I wonder

whether it is socially acceptable to ask people to work in those conditions. Perhaps the time will come when modern technology will devise better, safer and more socially acceptable methods of getting coal.
We are all happy to burn coal and use its various bonuses—heat and so on—but not many of us think about the cost of that coal in human terms. I have seen that cost in medical practice. I ask the House, when thinking about productivity, to bear in mind the conditions in which miners work and to realise that we shall get real improvements only when we make the job safer and pleasanter. When we achieve that situation, morale in the industry will improve startlingly.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I add my congratulations to those that have been offered to you during the last few days. I am sorry that I am a little late, but this is the first time that I have been called to speak.
The debate has been profitable and necessary, and we are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) for initiating it. I know that my hon. Friend will not say it aloud, because he is a modest man, but he is held in high regard in his own area for many of the reasons that he mentioned, and not least because he was the innovator of a new payment scheme in the mining industry. We all know how difficult it is to get any such change brought about.
For the last two years the National Union of Mineworkers, through its national executive, has been trying as hard as anyone could to get through a scheme as recommended by Wilberforce—a productivity payment scheme if one likes so to call it. Many people do not like the word "productivity," but perhaps for the sake of shorthand we can use it and agree that everybody wants a better system of payment in the mining industry. I note that one of my hon. Friends disagrees, but in my view such a scheme is necessary.
Perhaps one may for a moment look back at the history of the payment of wages in the mining industry. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the ancient system of tying the wages earned by the men at each pit to the amount of coal that


was sold. The results fluctuated dramatically, and in fact miners have for many years had a prices and incomes policy. It was only after 1947, when the industry was nationalised, that that system was cast overboard. It was in 1955, eight years after the mines were nationalised, that a proper nationally-agreed system of payment was introduced. That is a measure of how long it takes to get things done.
In 1955 there was introduced the first day wage structure. Under this system everybody in the pits whether he was a face pieceworker, a pieceworker outbye or a haulage hand, was given an identification number and a basic day wage payment. If he did not make enough on the face on piecework, he was guaranteed a basic day wage rate. If my memory serves me right, at the time I was there the rate for a face pieceworker was 31s. 9d. That was the basic rate, so we have made some progress since then.
In about 1966 the power loading agreement came into force. Under that scheme the face power loader—the panzer man as we called him—was given a basic rate. I must not use the phrase "day wage", because the men on the panzers and on the power loaders say that they work extremely hard. Nevertheless it is a basic payment, and there are no pluses. If production on one day is 10 times higher than that of the previous day, it makes no difference and the basic rate at the end of the week is the same. That is in the contract. That is what the men are paid, provided that a proper effort is made to produce the coal. It may be that because of geological reasons or supply or other problems, production falls. Nevertheless every man on the team gets the basic shift rate per week.
Recently there has been introduced the third wage structure. I think that this was referred to by the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler). There are men outbye who get considerably less but who are doing the same jobs as those done by people working for outside tunnelling contractors. The latter receive sometimes double the daily rates of pay for miners. I do not know whether it is the structure payment scheme that is preventing the miners from receiving a proper rate of pay for this type of work.
I realise that the National Coal Board has problems if there is a basic structure payment for men outbye the face. The board has to abide by that structure and pay the men the laid down rate of pay, but those in the mining industry know that this is creating tremendous problems in the pits.
I think that all my hon. Friends who know the mining industry will agree with me when I say that the men doing piecework on air crossings, drifts, driving tunnels and the thousand and one other jobs that have to be done complementary and supplementary to face production were paid more than face piece-workers. Now, however, the same payment structure applies to all. If there is a difference, it does not amount to very much.
It is crucial that those who were in the mining industry should take a more detached view of the situation. We are not now in the pits but we are proud to be among the 18 sponsored Members with practical experience of working in the pits. We can speak to our colleagues on this matter of piecework. I know the history of it. I know how glad some men were to see its abolition. There is not now a system under which a man on the coalface in Scotland would get substantially more or substantially less than a man doing a similar job in another mining district. There is now a system of equalisation, and many people say that it is about time too and that they will not abandon it. They say that they will not go back to the old piecework system.
A moment ago I said that those who were not now working in the pits could take a detached view of the situation. My view is that there was little wrong with the piecework system when it was possible to operate it. When the men were earning money on piecework, there was no problem. I speak with experience in the pits, and also as branch secretary of seven and a half years. The problem arose—here I am 100 per cent. behind what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham—because the management, while being competent engineers, had little understanding of what I call the subtleties or the common touch.
Problems arose when the face was not producing or the rip was not able to be advanced. If the men were not able to accomplish their target of X number of yards advance, problems arose because


the management did not have the nous—it may be that there was some reluctance on the part of the union for such a system; I do not know—to have a proper evaluation of the time that was spent waiting for the necessary supplies to arrive, geological difficulties to be overcome and so on. Not enough sense was shown by the management in dealing with problems—though no doubt the management would argue that there was not enough understanding on the part of the men of the problems—and that was when difficulties arose.
I maintain—and I am open to challenge by anybody with experience in the pits—that when the men were producing coal on piecework rates there was little complaint about the system. Problems arose when the job was not going forward for reasons outside the control of the men. Quite often they were the victims of inefficient management. They were not producing the money, and rows resulted.
I should like to give a classic example of what I mean in support of what my hon. Friend said about an enlightened management. I was a secretary at Sutton Manor for seven and a half years. I had a face there—I used to call it mine, because I was one of the 54 million coal owners—which for one reason or another never turned coal. We had a fall-back system under which the men could not be paid less than 50s. a day, £15 a week. A charge-man there, whom we used to call a "puffler", used to say to me "We have made only 55s. or 60s., yet other men on other faces are earning £5 or £6. We are working just as hard yet they are making twice as much money and seem to be getting it easier."
Every week I would go to the management. Some weeks they would give us a few shillings extra per shift and other weeks they would say "It is their own fault if these men are getting only this amount. If others on other faces can do so well, so can they."
We then had a new under-manager with whom I had worked myself. He said to me "Don't come the old story with me. These men want more money and I can't understand why they aren't earning it." He phoned back later to say "I am going to give them the biggest allowance they have ever had, because

something about this situation puzzles me." He gave them the biggest individual payment they had ever had to make up their money—10s. a shift—and said that he wanted to have discussions with the men about the problems they thought that the company should be solving and that lie would tell them what we thought they should be doing.
Those discussions followed and he went on that face himself for a fortnight. At the end of six weeks those men fulfilled his prophecy. When he had given them the 10s. a shift, he had said "If I cannot get you men earning the highest wages at Sutton Manor and having the highest productivity on a very awkward face, I will pack in." They were delighted to get the money but thought that his prophecy would not come true. But it did. After six weeks they earned the highest wages ever at the pit and had the highest productivity. No one had broader chests than those men, who had previously been maligned for not knowing how to do the job.
This came about because we had a manager with the common touch. He had had experience on the face, as most managers have, and he understood the problems not only of the workers but of the management.
I want the National Coal Board and the union to get together. It will be in the best interests of the country, the industry and its workers to have a productivity or incentive scheme to reward all those in the industry. One of the bad things about piecework, even when it went well, was that only a few shared in the cake. The men on the loader and the men on the top got nothing; only the face pieceworkers benefited. They felt this badly but used to say that the problem was not for them. They are right: it is for those responsible to devise a scheme which will remove the worst aspects of the old piecework system, include the good ones and bring in some new ones.
The industry is awakening to the fact that we need a new look at this. The union has been trying for two years with the National Coal Board to get a proper productivity scheme. I and, I am sure, my hon. Friends will do what we can to help. But the two bodies must get together. I know the fears of many men in the coalfield. I have explained the


fear about piecework. They have been misunderstood, although they are genuine fears. We want a system which will reward everybody. The board should work towards that end and the result will be a happier and more profitable industry.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I agree very much with the final words of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire). One wants to see rewards for work done in the industry. This requires some element of piecework. of genuine productivity bonus in the creation of the new structure which is so necessary.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) has done the House a service by raising this matter. We have heard a great deal recently about miners and miners' pay. Few speakers have thought about what really matters, which is the productivity to be derived from the pits and the problems which arise on that score.
My knowledge is local, at least in recent years, and I shall be referring to the Kent pits, of which there are three—Betteshanger, Tilmanstone and Snow-down; the fourth is closed. I also had some knowledge of the East Midlands area in the days when I was the candidate for South Nottingham. Hon. Members will know that until recently the East Midlands was the area of the greatest productivity and profitability, although its coal was of the poorest quality and sold at the lowest price. There are some lessons to be learned from that.
If I am critical in some of the things I say now, it is because it is necessary for someone to be so; it is because so few people have been constructively critical of matters relating to the pits that so little has been done.
The first major problem that we must tackle is that of absenteeism. The second, which goes with it, is the problem of managerial control—one can call it discipline if one likes. I prefer to call it a proper relationship between the National Coal Board and the men in the pits.
Dealing with absenteeism first, let us remind ourselves a little of the history.

After nationalisation, there were problems in the early days and the National Coal Board put up an affirmative proposal for a benefit. That was a bonus benefit where men engaged in the five-shift week. That admirable idea, which could have been a great success, ultimately failed because in those days the excuses for failure to turn up to work for those five normal shifts which were held to qualify for the bonus became so manifold and so many excuses were allowed that in the end people could be absent and not do the five-shift week. The contingent bonus shift was therefore abolished and the payment was incorporated into the weekly wage. The miners had a very good laugh about that, because it meant that they got back to the basis of an ordinary shift and any valid excuse which was acceptable, and this meant the end of the bonus system.
The first thing which is emphatically necessary in order to secure a real improvement in absenteeism is that we should give a bonus benefit for proper attendance, but there must be no single excuse taken. It would be just bad luck if someone were sick during that period; he would not get the benefit of the bonus. After all, the bonus is paid if a team of workers undertakes the necessary shifts not only for one week but for at least five weeks. The bonus should be substantial, because if we are to improve on the figures to which I shall turn this problem must be tackled.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not seeking to perpetuate the old myth that the rate of absenteeism is higher in mining than in other industries. I hope that he realises that the system of measurement of absenteeism in the mining industry is rather different from that used in other industries and includes people who are off sick and off for other reasons.

Mr. Rees-Davies: It is absolute nonsense to call it a myth. Interventions such as that will not help. That is what I might describe as a typical protectionist suggestion on the part of Labour Members. I know the position full well.
I turn now to the figures for absenteeism. In the Kent pits the absenteeism figure, which always has included illness and sickness, as it does elsewhere, has


been based upon an ordinary five-shift week. In Betteshanger, Tilmanstone and Snowdown the absentee figures in the early part of 1973 varied from 12 per cent, to 16 per cent. That was more or less in line with the then current norm throughout the country. By October of last year the figure at Betteshanger had reached 21 per cent. At Tilmanstone and Snowdown it was 18 per cent. For reasons which are well known to those who understand the industry, the figures in Derbyshire and that area had also risen to between 18 and 20 per cent.
When I took the trouble to look at some of the pay packets, including those of chargemen and men working on the night shift, I found that the average miner working in the Kent pits was working four shifts out of five, because he was orienting his take-home pay to ensure that he secured the maximum tax relief. A very large number of miners there were working four shifts out of five.
In October the figures began to get very much worse. The difficulty was that the National Coal Board had got itself into such a situation that, when I asked for the statistics of absenteeism in the Kent pits for November and December of last year and for January of this year, I was told that all the statisticians were also on strike. We had reached a state of inefficiency which was sublime. I had to go to the pit manager and I then found that the figures were up to nearly 50 per cent. in certain weeks.
Every time there has been a substantial rise in pay, there has been thereafter a substantial increase in absenteeism. I am in favour of the miners being the highest paid manual workers in the country, particularly those miners working at the face, and I am on record as saying so many times, but this should be only on the basis that they give us the productivity and that they are prepared to do a decent week's work.
I know, and many Labour Members know from their experience of the pits, that there is a percentage of miners—it is probably as high as 20 per cent. in the Kent pits—who would be willing to work, and who prefer to work, a three-shift week rather than a four-shift week as they have been doing in recent months.
How are we to get a five-shift week? We will not do it on the basis of paying a day wage rate. In the post-war nationalisation years, wages for actual production were based on the tonnage achieved in relation to the norm. For the purpose of calculation it was known as the price list, which was negotiated colliery by colliery at pit level between the National Coal Board and the union for every coalface. That calculation provided the norm and it was paid on productivity and on tonnage.
Along came Lord Robens. In those days Paynter was the national secretary of the union. Those two got together and agreed that it should all be on day work instead of piecework. They passed that through their respective executives because Lord Robens thought that it was a good idea: it was going on in America where it did not work at all badly. It is a failure here.
Of course there is an argument for saying that in a nationalised industry there should be standardised wages in all parts. Hon. Members who know the pits know that pits vary to the same extent as one diamond is different from another and one ruby differs from another, One seam differs from another. Geological conditions vary enormously in different pits. Production therefore varies. It is possible to work out what is the reasonable production pit by pit, and even seam by seam, but that is a job to be done locally between local men on the spot.
Working on that basis, we got decent productivity. Along those lines, surely we can work out a sensible and increased productivity agreement with bonuses if production rises.
For production to rise there must be a team effort. Miners work as a team. They work as a team, not only with the men who actually dig the coal, but also with the fitters and with those who must go in with them—the electricians and so on. So if there is to be increased production we must go back to the days of piecework and productivity.
At the same time, if we want to get rid of absenteeism, as we do, there should undoubtedly be, as the hon. Member for Ince said, some fall-back pay. If the men turned up and put in five shifts during the week, a basic wage would be


payable for that, but on top of that there would be the advantages of a direct productivity payment working on the basis of the norm and adding to it. That is why I say that, coupling these two, the miners will undoubtedly be very highly paid if they want to be, because they will have the advantage of conquering the problems of absenteeism—and what a great boon that would be.
There are 19 members of the Labour Party who are sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers. I want to discuss the rôle which I envisage they should pursue in the coming months.

Mr. George Grant: I shall try to make my interjection short and will merely ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reflect on the speech of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Dr. Winstanley), who spoke from experience as a medical consultant. If there were to be a return to a system of a bonus being paid for a five-shift week, there would be a strong possibility of an unfit man going to work in order to earn the bonus, and he would be a danger not only to himself but to others.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I do not think that is at all likely. I will deal briefly with the health and hazard question. I shall have an important suggestion to make on that before I conclude. However, the hon. Gentleman's intervention took me right out of the mainstream of my argument to the effect that absenteeism must be conquered and productivity must rise.
I ask hon. Members to listen to what Mr. Alexander Lindsay, who was for many years a very good Labour man, said to me when writing from Cardiff. Some hon. Members here may well know Mr. Lindsay. Indeed, I suspect that Mr. Deputy Speaker may well know him. Mr. Lindsay says:
during my 19 years as Finance Director, South Western Division, from Vesting Day until I retired on age limit in 1965, all the NCB's constant efforts in the directions you indicate "—
this letter was in response to a letter I had written earlier to the Daily Telegraph—
were defeated by the vigorously militant minority of the NUM members and by the laxity and the apathy of the moderate majority of miners who did not even bother to attend

the Colliery Lodge meetings where the bullets of aggression and non-co-operation were manufactured and most devastatingly fired.
This is the real point:
Over the years, the National Coal Board in London pursued a policy of appeasement with the NUM instead of insisting upon employers' managerial rights in the 'fair and firm' imposition of discipline upon employees—which failure, tragically common to so many of our British industries, is the greatest single factor in the present decline and fall of the industry.
Hon. Members know quite well that the management at present is deplorably weak. Little or nothing has been done to stop absenteeism or to check the validity of the matters which arise.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Dr. Winstanley) spoke from his medical knowledge, and he is entitled to do so. When I was dealing with Factories Act cases in the courts in the course of my practice, many cases arose involving pneumoconiosis derivable in the pits. I have complete understanding of and sympathy with those cases. But why has the National Union of Mineworkers objected to having proper clinics and doctors at the pithead? One of the most important innovations that we need is a first-class clinic at each pithead so that all the men in the pit can attend that clinic instead of having to go home to their several GPs.
There are miners who are not good men, who dodge the column with excuses which are not valid. They are a tiny minority, but they do no service to the industry. There are such men, just as there are those who attend union meetings and are the militant Left-wingers who do not give a damn for profitability, for their fellow workers or anything else.
We have got to do three things. First, we have got to see that a week's wage, not a day's wage, is paid. In paying a week's wage, a substantial bonus is given to those who actually attend over the weeks. It is no good going back to the period immediately after 1945. The men must be there to do the work, otherwise the team breaks up. If the team breaks up, we do not get productivity. We must get negotiation back at the pit level and decide what is a proper norm for production, and we must see that the miners get a good increase over and above the norm if they really bring out the coal. They will do it.
We have got to see that physical examinations are conducted at the pithead and not allow men to get away with it, as has been allowed to happen.
Finally, we must change the present management of the National Coal Board. These people may be good at accountancy, although I do not think they are very good at that. If they do not know the figures for absenteeism, how can they possibly compute what the production figure: should be? When I found in Kent that production running from between 35,000 tons and 37,000 tons in Betteshanger last year, went down to 13,000 tons in January—before the strike—in Tilmanstone from 20,000 down to 5,000 tons, and in Snowdown from 25,000 down to 9,000 tons, I realised that it was time that not merely Labour Members but Tory Members should take a close interest in this subject, and I have been doing so for some time.
I urge hon. Members opposite like the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), who opened the debate on sensible lines—I bitterly regret not having got here to hear the whole of his speech; it took me half an hour to come from Victoria—to take the line that I have been taking in this House in recent days—the nonpartisan line—and not feel that they have to protect the miners. The miners are the barons of tomorrow. They do not need protecting. The days have gone when they need 19 men like those stalwarts who are sitting on the Government benches to protect their interests. They can very well protect themselves. What Labour Members can do—one and all of the 19—is to see that we get a really worthwhile industry which is not notorious for its absenteeism but is famous for its fantastic production at a time when the country needs it.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Richard Kelley: One would have thought that had the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) been so interested in this subject, he would have taken care not to be at Victoria 30 minutes before wishing to address the House.

Mr. Rees-Davies: May I point out that this is the second subject for debate. The first one was at 3.30 p.m., and it is not unreasonable to expect the first one to take a certain length of time. In addi-

tion, it usually takes five minutes, not 30 minutes, to get to the House from Victoria.

Mr. Kelley: The explanation is not a satisfactory excuse.
The walls in this House have reverberated throughout the last few years to remarks about the reduction in productivity in the mining industry. We were told that the production figure would have to be reduced from 150 million tons to 130 million tons and that perhaps by 1975 the figure would be 122 million tons. It is rather a shock to listen to those people who espoused the idea that the industry should be run down now indulging in the euphoria for increased production in the mining industry. I do not think any industry in the country has a record of increased productivity such as the mining industry has. Therefore, I do not understand what all this euphoria is about.
Reference has been made in the debate to piecework and whether a man's wages should depend upon his effort. This is what piecework is all about. I had something to do with the industry when piecework was the method of payment. I remember being called to the pit at 4 o'clock one morning because there had been a fatal accident. There was a man called Bob Peacock, who weighed about 17½ stone, under a fall of muck weighing about 8½ tons. He was certified dead. By the time I got there the doctor had arrived, and the question was how to get him out without a great deal of trouble. I said to one of the men who was arranging the Sylvester which would eventually draw the body from underneath the muck, where it was dangerous for other people to go, "Why did he go in there?" He said "We have got to get the job completed". This was a ripping job at the coalface and they had to get the job completed because their wages depended upon it.
This was the kind of thing we had in the mining industry—a constant conflict between the representative of the management and the men themselves who were actually doing the job. It led to the kind of incident which I have just described. It was a good thing that we were able to get away from that. We are still embroiled in this kind of thing because the power loading agreements stipulate


the number of men required to perform a task.
Anyone who thinks that we can have the job computerised obviously has no knowledge of the conditions under which mining operations are carried out. We cannot forecast what is ahead of the work. The geology of the place is unknown. The circumstances in which the job has to be conducted are not laid down from any previous experience. It is work which has to be explored by highly intelligent and experienced men at the coalface. Therefore. to expect that productivity should be related to wages or wages related to productivity is out of tune with the kind of problem which faces us.
We have been telling the House for a long time what this problem is—that coal is the principal source of energy. It is source of energy over which we have political control and which is, and always was, far cheaper in the long run than Middle East oil. Add to the cost of oil the cost of maintaining a military presence in the Middle East, which was necessary to allow oil to be extracted from the area, and oil becomes a great deal more expensive than coal. The miners' group of MPs told the House that for 20 years but no one took any notice until there was an equalisation of military forces in the Middle East. The Russians made their presence felt, and the United States and Western Europe were no longer able to obtain oil from the Middle East at the price they wanted. Suddenly coal has become important. Miners are not economists or political scientists, and they probably never went to university, but they gave warnings of what would happen and almost named the date. They were completely ignored.
Now comes the problem of raising productivity in the pits to about 150 million tons a year. That is what the debate is all about. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) spoke about standard conditions. There are no such things. Not even the power loading agreement can be related to standard conditions. Conditions can never be appraised because their consistency can never be guaranteed from one day to the next. The wage must therefore be agreed by some form of common con-

sent. There will have to be an appraisal of the local conditions in the pit with the wage paid according to a national scale. That is the point to which the industry has developed. To some extent accidents like the one I described need not take place because wages will not be dependent upon the completion of a task which is rendered impossible by geological factors.
I now turn to the danger to health and the fact that miners contract respiratorial diseases. There comes a point at which men suffering from pneumoconiosis are no longer fit to work at the coalface. Pneumoconiosis has a legal significance which is not related to its medical significance. The seriousness of chest disabilities is not always shown up on X-ray plates. Bronchitis, for example, cannot be registered on an X-ray plate, yet it is a disease to which the miner is susceptible, as was shown by evidence produced in a recent article in The Lancet. A man who is suffering from a severe pull and already has respiratorial difficulties would find it impossible to carry out some of the tasks required of him at the coalface.
Therefore, in discussing absenteeism full account must be taken of the laborious nature of the job and the already inhibited conditions of the miner's chest, complaints from which almost nine out of every 10 men suffer. If a man is a member of a team the safety of his work mates may well depend on his efficiency. I have yet to meet a doctor in any mining area who would not be prepared to certify that a man was unfit to carry out his tasks if he was suffering from what many might regard as a minor infection of the chest. They realise that the man's strength and stamina would not be adequate.
The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West must realise that absenteeism cannot be resolved by taking a case to the Bar and arguing legal points. These men must use their muscles to lift heavy weights and place massive supports into position to protect the lives of others. It is a question of being physically fit as against being mentally alert. Payment on a weekly basis would adversely affect the miner if I am correct in assuming that the hon. and learned Member would wish the wage to be cut if a man was absent.
The answer to the problem of productivity lies principally in the question of capital investment. The fact that little more than a week after the resumption of work production is up to 80 per cent. of productive capacity is sufficient testimony to the men's loyalty to the nation. Their history is also proof of their loyalty. During the war and afterwards when the nation was struggling to assert some kind of economic recovery from the greatest catastrophe ever to overtake mankind the miners continued to produce the coal, increasing their productivity year after year. They have responded in a similar fashion over the last 10 days to the agreement reached on miners' pay.
The idea that we can produce more coal by inducing the miners to make more effort is a non-starter. I believe that they are already doing everything that can be expected of them, and if the nation wants more coal out of the pits it must put more money into them.

5.59 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) for initiating the debate. In doing so he demonstrated both practical and technical experience in a way which probably assisted other hon. Members in making their contributions.
My hon. Friend said that we should be considering the question of productivity in the mining industry and that the nation, indeed the world, must realise that we are confronted today with an energy crisis. These points to some extent demonstrate Government thinking. When the Opposition were in Government they took the line that we had an energy problem, but, as my hon. Friend emphasised, it is not merely an energy problem—it is rather an energy crisis.
My hon. Friend said that 1960 was the period when we had the greatest productivity rise in mining. It is significant to bear in mind that this was at the start of a great technological breakthrough in the industry. There was, for instance, the introduction of powered supports, which substantially contributed to the increase in productivity. The House should be reminded that these productivity increases, which were substantial, were achieved at great personal sacrifice by people in the industry.
My hon. Friend was correct to refer to the closure programme of collieries, but the important question of productivity was the keynote of his contribution. He was right to ask for figures from the National Coal Board on the productivity records of some of the main collieries over a 15-year period, and I shall endeavour to give him the information which he desired.
My hon. Friend also spoke about what he defined as the sociological problem of how to get improved productivity and improved industrial relations. He demonstrated that if there is co-operation in the industry only good can accrue, in terms of productivity and the future outlook of mining.
My hon. Friend put to the House an analysis of the various wage structures in mining and spoke about the piecework system. However, it must be understood that there is no chance of the industry going back to that system.
I feel privileged to be making my first speech as a Minister, particularly as it relates to an industry which I know well. As a former miner I have worked hard under the piecework system. I have on some occasions worked hard the whole day and earned no money at all. There would be great difficulty, due to the geological and other factors which affect the working of piece-rate systems, in getting the men in the industry to accept such a system.
I know through my experience as a trade union negotiator that the piece-rate system caused more difficulty than anything else in industrial relations in mining. One had to be almost a Philadelphia lawyer to be a trade union negotiator. Terms such as deep cuts, falling stone, bad roof and tight gum were used.
My hon. Friend has shown that the system did not work in what we now call cost-benefit analysis terms. Discretionary payments doubled over 15 years, despite all the troubles. The return to a day-wage system in the mining industry has brought peace and stability to the industry.
Perhaps the main part of my hon. Friend's contribution was the suggestion that an incentive scheme might be applied. He tried to illustrate, from his


personal experience, how such a scheme could be operated. He said that an attempt should be made to marry the pieceworking system to a day-wage system. I hope the House will agree that wage negotiations, at local, regional or national level, are matters for trade unions and employers. The NUM and the NCB should be involved in these negotiations—not the Government.
The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) was in favour of an incentive scheme, but such a scheme would have to be worked out so that it was not operated on a colliery versus colliery basis. The history of the matter would be against such a scheme, but the suggestion could probably be explored by the unions and the National Coal Board.

Mr. Adam Butler: Would not the Minister agree that an incentive scheme on a purely national or industry basis would be of little or no value in increasing productivity? That is why I press for a colliery-based scheme. Will the Minister use his not inconsiderable influence to try to persuade the NUM to look at a colliery-based incentive scheme, rather than a purely national one?

Mr. Eadie: I wish to make it clear that this is a matter not for the Government but for the employers—the National Coal Board and the miners' unions. Probably one of the most significant lessons recently learned is that it is a great mistake for Government to interfere in wage negotiations. This is particularly applicable in the mining industry, in which negotiations should be left to the unions and the National Coal Board.
Regarding new techniques, miners have an excellent record in co-operating in the introduction of new techniques and new machines, and I am sure that this co-operation will continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) drew attention to the manpower problem that we could easily face in the industry He was aware that we have not an energy problem but an energy crisis. My hon. Friend said that we should see where pits could be expanded now. He was perhaps mainly making a constituency point, although I may be doing him an injustice in saying

that. He was probably looking at the matter in the national interest as well.
My hon. Friend pointed out that if that policy were pursued in an endeavour to increase coal production it could create problems over housing development. He cited the mini-town development in his area. I can understand the problem. We are carrying out informal discussions with the unions and the NCB, and hope to institute as soon as possible an inquiry into the industry, which we promised in our election manifesto. I have pleasure in telling the House that we are implementing our election pledge only days after being elected to office.
I am sure that the House is glad to have the lion. Member for Hazel Grove (Dr. Winstanley) back again. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who contributed to mining debates in a previous Parliament, for his contribution today. He has family connections with the industry and a professional connection as a medical practitioner. The hon. Gentleman described how injured miners are dealt with. The problem is one of great concern to those of us who have worked in the industry. When a man is seriously injured underground his fellow miners are anxious to get him to the surface quickly. Time can be of the essence. I have been involved in such situations, and I know that miners make heroic efforts to hurry an injured man to the surface so that his life may be saved.
The hon. Gentleman was right to raise these problems. There has been a great deal of co-operation between the unions and the NCB to try to expedite such life-saving attempts.
We are also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to a miner's difficulty in returning to work after suffering an injury. The hon. Gentleman showed a sympathy and compassion that may have been lacking in other hon. Members with regard to the problem of how difficult it is for a miner to go back to work although he may appear to be fit. Sometimes a miner has to be like an athlete. Half-fitness is not enough for a man who has to crawl up and down a coal face which is 3–5 ft high and handle objects weighing 2–3 cwt, in the most awkward and difficult conditions. There must be a proper medical inspection before a miner is passed as


being fit to return to work. We wish that people would understand that, and then they might understand the problems of the so-called absentee record.
The hon. Gentleman made a plea for better working conditions and safety. This Government are well seized of that problem, and we shall see that in the forth-coming inquiry there are joint discussions on this.
The hon. Gentleman talked about beat knee, nystagmus and pneumoconiosis. One can get beat knee without going down the pit. It is better known as housemaid's knee. I winced when the hon. Gentleman talked about it, because beat knee is a painful experience.
In Scotland we call nystagmus "glennie blink". Its history goes back to the time of the Davy safety lamp. The miners in Scotland called the lamp the "glennie", and when a miner developed blinking of the eyes they did not call the ailment by the medical name with which the hon. Gentleman is most familiar. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that because of much improved lighting conditions the problem is not very big, but we should not be complacent about it.
Pneumoconiosis is a very serious problem.

Mr. Kelley: Is not my hon. Friend of the opinion that the danger of contracting pneumoconiosis from the dust arises from the fact that insufficient money has been spent on suppressing dust at transfer points and cutting operations, and that the expenditure of more capital would probably reduce the incidence of the disease?

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend is aware that the NUM has been expressing a view on the matter for a considerable time. Safety questions will be considered by the inquiry, and I am sure that everything will be done to improve the situation.
The question of morale was raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove when he spoke about better methods of mining. Morale has improved considerably since the Government made a settlement with the miners only days after coming into office. Production in the industry is now about 88 per cent. of normal in most areas.
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter of new techniques, because the view is often expressed that mining is an old, antiquated industry. In fact, it is highly technical and very well mechanised. But it will be a glorious day when we can mechanise it even more and take away the hard work and danger from the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) is a great authority on mining. He speaks with authority, because he has taken part in the industry. When he asked whether we were going to talk about productivity and piecework schemes in relation to the 1880 basis, I remembered my introduction to the industry on the 1880 basis of productivity and the production that was expected. One would come up the pit and see a notice at the pithead saying that the pit would not work the next day because the quotas had been over-produced. That happened to me in my early days in the industry. It was not such a great hardship to me, as I was then single, but it was a tremendous hardship to married men with families to be abruptly told that they would not work the next day. I do not think that that is generally appreciated.
My hon. Friend came out strongly in favour of incentive schemes. He showed by his personal experience how he would like to see something initiated of that nature. I must tell my hon. Friend that incentive schemes and wages are matters primarily for employee and employer rather than for the Government. Of course, anything which would increase productivity commensurate with safety would be applauded by the Government.
I find it difficult to wind up the debate because so much has been said and so much could be debated and discussed.
The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) talked about the National Coal Board not being very efficient in terms of management. The hon. and learned Gentleman is now absent. He may be a good lawyer, but if his prescription were applied I am afraid that industrial relations in the mining industry would be chaotic. I should be rather worried if it were applied. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman is not present and I do not think that I should make a further comment on his speech. No doubt he has had to leave for the best of all possible reasons.
The Government are seized of the fact that coal will play a vital rôle in our energy supplies. They are determined that the miners should receive a fair return for their unique contribution. We are also aware that it will be essential for the industry to be efficient and that it is necessary that coal supplies should be reliable. Although we realise that coal is at present markedly cheaper than oil the margins could change from time to time. Nevertheless, we are confident that the industry has a good future.
In the forthcoming tripartite inquiry the Government, with the unions and the NCB, will work out how coal can make the most effective contribution to the economy. Proper treatment of miners and a proper regard for safety, health and like considerations will play their rightful part. We are aware of the NCB's proposed development programme, and we shall wish to discuss with the board how that programme can best be achieved and whether more should be done. In planning any major development careful attention will be paid to matters such as transport and housing and necessary social provisions such as schools.
I am indebted to the initiator of the debate. It has made a contribution towards bringing to the country's attention some of the mining industry's problems. I am sure that because of the sympathy and the understanding which has been shown by some hon. Members the debate will make a contribution towards improving the morale of our essential mining industry.

Orders of the Day — COMMISSION ON THE CONSTITUTION

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I invite the House to turn its attention to another urgent and pressing matter; namely, the report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution. I am fortified by the knowledge that some other Members on the Liberal bench may catch the eye of the Chair this evening. I am speaking not in any official sense for the Liberal Party but for myself and in the interests of my constituents following a long study of the problem with other

people. Those people have not all been Liberals. They have mostly lived south of the Tweed and north of the Trent.
As the House knows, the Royal Commission was appointed five years ago. The terms of reference were notably wide by British standards. Eleven of the 13 commissioners who were there at the finish interpreted the terms of reference rather restrictively. At the outset of the report they said that they intended:
…to concentrate our work of detailed examination and our positive recommendations on those issues which were primarily geographical in character.
The other two commissioners took a wider view of the terms of reference. I shall remind the House of the comments of Lord Crowther-Hunt and Professor Alan Peacock by quoting their interpretation. They said:
We have interpreted our terms of reference as meaning that we should consider what changes might be necessary in our system of Government as a whole if it is to meet the needs and aspirations of the people.
Further on in their interpretation they say:
We believe that our colleagues have seriously underestimated the likely consequences of United Kingdom membership of the Common Market. We consider that over the years this will have a major impact on the working of our main institutions of government; we have, accordingly, sought to take account of this in our recommendations.
Lord Crowther-Hunt and Professor Alan Peacock, despite, according to custom, having no Civil Service help in preparing a memorandum of dissent, embarked on the bolder and more commendable course.
Since the report, at least three new factors have emerged which should be considered. The first factor is the result of the poll on 28th February, which probably rescued these documents from being just a series of text books. The second factor which has emerged since the publication of the report is the prospect of a drop in our gross national product and a reduction in what materialists call the standard of living. We have little experience in this House of a country which in peace time faces a declining standard of living. Many authorities expect that in itself to place a considerable strain on our constitution.
The third factor is the reduced respect for certain aspects of the law. Whilst


we remain fundamentally a law-abiding people, there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that respect for the law is diminishing pari passu with a lack of respect for the way in which the law is made. It behoves everyone considering changes in the constitution to take note of the sombre example of Stormont and avoid any scheme which could possibly introduce an element of that kind into the rest of the United Kingdom.
The 11 commissioners who signed the report did not forecast in a real sense those three important developments. I believe that they were foreseen to a substantial extent by Lord Crowther-Hunt and Professor Alan Peacock. Perhaps they took a wider view of the matter than their colleagues. I commend the fact that the memorandum of dissent urges that the further time which will obviously be necessary to produce detailed schemes should be used largely by hon. Members and other directly elected public representatives.
It is we in this House, and other elected persons, who should now take the lead and make most of the running in pursuing the various schemes which have been put forward. We must do so quickly. The result of the General Election indicated that in Scotland and Wales the combined polls of Liberals, Scottish Nationals and Plaid Cymru brought the matter to an urgent and pressing state. That will be dealt with faithfully by my colleagues on the Liberal bench if they are fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair.
In England there were few, if any, nationalist candidates in the General Election. The greater part of the 5,600,000 votes cast for Liberal candidates in England implied that degree of support for radical policies on devolution. I join with many hon. Members in doubting the validity of judgments as to why people cast their votes in certain ways. But it is true that no Liberal candidate would succeed in passing the various panels which the Liberal Party has for assessing candidates unless he had a considerable belief in the Liberal Party's policies on devolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members present seem largely to have been denied the privilege of having a Liberal against them at the hustings.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Did the hon. Gentleman refer to the Liberal Party's policy on devolution or the Liberal Party's policies on devolution?

Mr. Wainwright: I was referring, from my own knowledge, to the Liberal Party's policy expressed in that invaluable document called "Power to the Provinces", which I invite the hon. Gentleman to read.
The second background factor of the restriction in public consumption, which is going to be very severe, will mean that almost everyone will look far more closely than in the past, and perhaps rather jealously, at the distribution of resources throughout these islands. If we are to have a hard fight in future for every single bus shelter and every new public convenience, let alone schools and spending-money, it is of the utmost importance that everyone should know that they have equal political rights.
I concede at once that equal representation does not need to be on a precisely numerically equal basis. There are parts of the United Kingdom where area is as important as population. I am certainly not pleading for any numerical equality. But I believe that in their present mood and in the present difficult circumstances most people would not tolerate for long any system in which some of them had representation in two Parliaments and many of them had representation in only one. I believe that as soon as possible new constitutional arrangements should be established so that everyone has representation in two levels of Parliament within this Kingdom.
On the third question—the rapidly diminishing respect for certain aspects of the law—the most important factor in getting consent, which is now the only satisfactory basis for establishing the law, is that there should be one highly respected focus of law-making. I offer to the House the example of our people being probably the best taxpayers in the world, despite having to bear a pretty heavy burden.
I believe that the high standard of taxpaying by and large is partly due to the fact that taxation is announced every year in circumstances which compel the attention of most of the population to


this House. I am not one of those who despite all the ceremonies of the Budget, because they serve to focus national attention on the taxation proposals and give people the feeling, corectly, that at least their tax burdens are going to be considered by their own representatives in this House.
It that focus of legislation were to be split up in a big way between various law-making Parliaments, there is, I think, a risk that the consequent respect for the law might be diminished, and, of course, in this respect the Common Market, to which Lord Crowther-Hunt and Professor Peacock devoted so much attention, is of great importance. We have had the benefit of the admirable advice on procedure in respect of Brussels directives and regulations and so on from the Select Committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Foster. But that committee did not tell us, nor was it able to tell us, where the parliamentary time and the parliamentary manpower could come from to tackle this vast new task.
Clearing the decks to deal with Brussels is a major priority for all sections of this House. We should be ill served if, at this moment, when we are about to receive a stream of legislation from Brussels, we embarked on a course of splitting the levels of law-making in these islands more than is absolutely necessary. These points are not met by the 11 commissioners who signed the majority report on the constitution.
I want to make an observation about the Kilbrandon Report itself. There is a danger of great confusion by applying the term "Kilbrandon" to any particular recommendation, even if it is only a minority recommendation, even if it is only one commissioner's recommendation, if it happens to appeal to one's personal taste or political self-interest.

Mr. Russell Johnston: My hon. Friend has said that when one uses the term "Kilbrandon" it does not necessarily mean one particular solution but perhaps a variety of solutions. There was a bit of applause from the Government benches at that point. Would he not agree that the one thing about which the Kilbrandon Report was unanimous was in recommending a change in the electoral system?

Mr. Wainwright: Yes. That was one of the most cheering features of the report. But on devolution it is clear that only one recommendation had the backing of a true majority of the 13 commissioners. This is referred to in paragraph 1123 of the report, which says:
Eight of us favour a scheme of legislative devolution for Scotland.
That is a majority of eight out of the 13. The paragraph goes on:
Of these, all but two favour legislative devolution for Wales also. Those two favour for Wales an assembly with deliberative and advisory functions. One of us favours assemblies with deliberative and advisory functions for both Scotland and Wales, with the addition in the case of the Scottish assembly of some powers in relation to parliamentary legislation. Two of us, who support the principle of uniformity, favour schemes of executive devolution for both Scotland and Wales (and for the regions of England).
That paragraph may be a good paraphrase or psalm, but is scarcely a good trumpet call for any particular scheme of devolution, except in the case of the recommendation on Scotland by eight of the commissioners.
In the circumstances, it seems to me quite legitimate to attach great importance to the memorandum of dissent, and particularly not to use the term "Kilbrandon" as a label for all kinds of different bottles. The word "Kilbrandon" rolls off the tongue in a satisfactory way, but it seems to me a basic error in marketing to launch a brand name for a product whose specification is uncertain, whose label is misleading and whose superficial appearance may raise expectations which cannot be fulfilled.
I turn now to England, where, as I have said, the document, "Power to the Provinces" is the basis on which Liberal Party candidates fought the General Election, with revisions due to the fact that local government changes were about to take place—I cannot bring myself to use the term "local government reform"—and the consequences of joining the EEC were beginning to be seen.
The memorandum of dissent effectively updates our own document "Power to the Provinces" in many respects. I mention only one in order to keep as brief as possible.
In the light of local government and other changes, Lord Crowther-Hunt and Professor Peacock have a scheme for


dividing England into only five regions compared with the 12 which the Liberal Party had previously in mind. This change seems to me to fit the new facts of the situation, and I accept it. I believe that each of these five regions of England needs, and could well sustain, an elected assembly or parliament and that each must have one as soon as possible. They are the North-West with about 7½ million people; the North-East, with about 8½ million; the Midlands, with about 8½ million; the South-East—this is an arguable case—with 22 million; and the South-West with 3,600,000.
These regional assemblies or parliaments would have elected representatives, mostly, I assume, of a regional character, who would be taking part, and be seen to be taking part, in key policy-making with considerable financial responsibility. They would draw upon the deep-rooted loyalties that exist, perhaps not always conspicuously, in the great provinces of England.

Mr. James Prior: What deep-seated loyalty does the hon. Gentleman think that my constituents in Lowestoft would have to the Isle of Wight? I just do not think that it works.

Mr. Wainwright: It never occurred to me from Lord Crowther-Hunt's scheme that East Anglia would necessarily be involved in the South-East. I said that the South-Eastern region was arguable. There is a case for an East Anglian province if the demand for it can be shown.
Even to a thoroughbred Yorkshireman, the tales of Hereward the Wake, and Trelawny, and, told to me in sombre tones, the stories of the red rose, all brought home to me from early childhood that, although we belong to one nation, there are many different and distinct loyalties. To give a domestic example, I remember spending many happy holidays as a child at Llandudno on the sands. But my parents reached the point when they vouchsafed to me that we would never come again because the place had been "overrun by people from Lancashire"—and we never did.
I do not ask the House to take my word for it. The Royal Commission undertook a survey to test the felt need for devolution in various parts of the United Kingdom. In reply to detailed questions the

percentage of those questioned who said they felt a need for devolution was 73 per cent. in Scotland, 69 per cent. in the North-West, 62 per cent. in Yorkshire and 59 per cent. in Wales. In any survey of that kind it is admitted that there must be a substantial margin of error, but, even applying a considerable margin of error, those are impressive figures.
To speak of Yorkshire, because I know that area best, the sort of question that prompts Yorkshiremen from all three Ridings to want devolution is, for example, the question of the Humber Bridge, which was debated in the House when I was here before. Yorkshire folk think it odd that the planning at great expense of a bridge that will have the largest single span in the world should be entrusted to a House of Commons few of whose Members, with respect, have any knowledge of the road system of that area. That is a classic example of the kind of issue that they believe should be debated thoroughly in a regional assembly of the North-East and Humberside.
Similarly, with the new Selby coalfield and the exciting discoveries that have been made there that compare in energy content with all the oil that has so far been discovered under the North Sea, when it comes to debating new methods of mining, which will be infinitely more humane than many of our present systems, many Yorkshire people believe that those debates should be initiated close to the new coalfield by people who will be intimately concerned.
I wish to stress that, so far as I am aware, there is no stupid anti-London element in this feeling. My fellow Yorkshiremen for the most part are proud of our capital city. They are glad to visit London but equally glad that they do not live there. Although they regard King's Cross as the best part of London, they have no feelings of antipathy towards the capital. Nor do they covet uniform powers with other provinces. For example, it would be foolish for Yorkshire to claim the same power for its main road system as might be appropriate for Cornwall, where all roads lead to the sea in a westerly direction. To interfere with the main road system in Yorkshire would be embarrassing and


a hindrance to people travelling the length of the country.
The memorandum of dissent from Lord Crowther-Hunt and Professor Peacock refers to a great deal of work that is already waiting to be done. In particular, there is the work that is being handed over during the next few days to nominated boards, for health in all its aspects, for water in all its aspects, fair and foul, under the same administration—a paradox which is already creating embarrassment—all aspects of energy; tourism; sport; the arts; forestry; and many other matters of great national importance. To leave those matters in the hands of nominated boards the members of which never face the electorate is fundamentally undemocratic. Similarly, our growing system of what is called in language of moderation which I do not believe to be justified "widespread consultation" is undemocratic. The establishment list of bodies which Whitehall thinks fit to consult is a scandal to democracy. It means that many valuable people who are busily occupied in getting on with the job are never consulted, whereas they should be able to express their views by election to provincial bodies.
The other job that is waiting to be done and in which there is an enormous gap to be filled is the democratic control on the spot of the army of loyal and devoted civil servants who work outside London. In 1970—the latest date on which the Royal Commission had information—whereas there were 135,000 civil servants working at departmental headquarters and in London, there were 276,000 working in regional or local offices. It is of the greatest importance that the Departments symbolised by these 276,000 people should be under closer democratic control. In many respects provincial assemblies could take over this matter.
To give an example, from the proposed North-East region there would be almost universal agreement that a parliament for that region could start meeting at York, where 11 English parliaments have met during the years under three kings of England. That would bring an elected parliamentary assembly within reach of a day's visit by any of its constituents. They

would be able to see their own parliament in operation and take note of the performance of its members.
I am thinking particularly of one extremely important group of citizens who would be glad of this opportunity—the Yorkshire mineworkers, who have a tremendously virile political tradition and against whom none of the usual charges of apathy could possibly be levelled. Although they come to Westminster on special occasions at considerable sacrifice, it would be much easier for a mineworker after several days on shift to take himself and his family to see parliament in action in Yorkshire than to come down here and wait for his place in our already overcrowded galleries. They have had a rough time under two different Governments and are anxious to take a greater part in our parliamentary processes.
I also want to see our regional parliaments having considerable powers in money and policy affairs. In my view, those two aspects are at least as important as law-making. I would have thought that the only claim of separate parliaments to law making arose where there was already a separate legal system in existence. In that case it is only natural that the law making should take place in the parliament to which that legal system belongs.
Having had the immense benefit of trying to study the memorandum of dissent I should like to see plans brought forward by the Government at an early date, after consultation with Members of this House, covering the whole of Great Britain, to bring power much nearer to the people and to give them responsibilities as well as rights. This could be carried out country by country, giving priority to those countries which have already demonstrated their demand for it but in such a way that in giving this priority, the rights and claims of the rest of Great Britain are in no way damaged. I hope that the Government will proceed in this way.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Iain MacCormick: It is a great privilege for me to be able to make my first speech in this House on a subject which I regard as being vitally important to Scotland. I do not wish to proceed further, however, without paying tribute to my predecessor, Mr.


Michael Noble, a man for whom I have a high personal regard. I have a high regard too for the way in which he handled his constituents' problems, including my own, from time to time.
I will not fall into the trap, into which the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) fell, of saying that there is no such thing as Kilbrandon. If we believe in the democratic process, we must believe that the majority report of Kilbrandon is the one which matters and the one which has the real ideas behind it. It is worth while remembering that the report came about as a result of the appointment of a Royal Commission by the previous Labour administration.
It is as well to remember too that that administration set the Royal Commission in being as a result of a certain by-election result in Scotland—the result of the Hamilton by-election in 1967. It is also true that it is because of the recent election, when a much larger number of Members representing the Scottish National Party, the Liberal Party and Plaid Cymru have been elected, that a mention of Kilbrandon was included in the Gracious Speech.
I was sorry to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland earlier today taking what I can only call a gloomy pleasure in saying "Oh, but the Scottish National Party achieved only a minority of Scottish votes." I suppose he was much happier at the 1970 General Election when our party polled only half the number of votes it polled on this occasion. He must have been positively ecstatic in 1966 when the SNP polled only half of what it achieved in 1970. I will not indulge in crystal-ball gazing but I suggest that there will be no element of delight in the right hon. Gentleman's gloom following the next General Election.
It is clear that a party such as the Scottish National Party has, in capturing over 600,000 votes in Scotland at this election, made a great stride forward in the move towards legislative devolution for Scotland. We in the Scottish National Party cannot take all the credit for that. Much of the credit—even though I am surrounded by people thinking roughly the same as myself I must say this—must go to the Labour and Conservative Parties for the obscurantist and evasive

tactics which they consistently adopted whenever the subject of legislative devolution for Scotland or Wales was raised.
This brings me inevitably to the position of our party as regards the majority proposals of Kilbrandon. The SNP has for many years campaigned for a much wider degree of self-government than even the majority report envisages. Why, then, have we come to this Parliament prepared to support anyone willing to adopt these proposals? The answer is that we are a responsible party. We are prepared to debate this kind of issue without the emotionalism and sneering which seems to characterise the attitude of Members belonging to both major parties.
If there is any emotionalism left in the debate over legislative devolution, it comes from what I would call the Unionist Party on this side of the House and the Unionist Party on the benches opposite. Those are the people who have seen the economic case swept from under their feet and those are the people who now have nothing at all on which to rest their fate other than the simple customs and traditions of the past.
Emotionalists say "Only 600,000 people support the Scottish National Party. The Scots do not want its programme." I am prepared, and I am sure that every member of my party, or the Liberal Party or Plaid Cymru would be so prepared, to say "O.K. If it is a question of what the Scots people want, put it to them in a referendum." I will accept exactly that measure of legislative devolution that the Scots are shown to want. The people of Northern Ireland and of Gibraltar got their referenda. But the people of Scotland and Wales have not been given one because the Labour and Conservative Parties know very well what the result of such a referendum would be.
We were asked earlier what sort of line the SNP would take assuming that some kind of assembly or parliament were set up on the lines of Kilbrandon. I say quite definitely that our party would play a major part in the running of such an assembly, within its rules. That is because we are a responsible party. We will show that Scotland can produce people who are prepared, able and willing to take part in responsible government


in Scotland or, for that matter, outside of Scotland in this House.
There are two reasons why I regard Kilbrandon as being vitally important. The first deals with details and I will leave those to others. For me that is not the most important reason. I consider it vital that as soon as possible some degree of decision making, answerable to the people of Scotland, must be transferred to our country.
The second reason why I am keen to see Kilbrandon adopted is much more important. It is because Kilbrandon will be the first step. Every legislative assembly in the world has needed a first step. It does not matter whether what Kilbrandon produces is called an assembly, a convention or a parliament. In effect it will be a parliament because it will be the first time for over 250 years that the Scots people have been able directly to elect a legislative assembly sitting in their own country. I can think of no other case in history when this has happened and when the powers that the people have demanded for the assembly have not become greater and greater. I am sure that that will happen.
I hope that no hon. Member will say that somehow that will clash with the sovereignty of this House. This House itself began long ago with a very restricted range of powers. If it had not been for the Pyms and Hampdens of the past demanding an increase in its sovereignty at the expense of the monarch, the powers of this House would be much more limited than they are today.
The Scottish National Party is saying "Let us begin with Kilbrandon." As long as we have that first stage, when the people of Scotland and the people of Wales see it working they will over the years naturally demand that the powers of their assemblies should be widened, and who knows at what stage they will say that that is enough? When the Scots people say that it is enough, it will be enough for me as well.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley made what I thought was an unfortunate comparison with the situation in Ireland when he talked about Stormont and the troubles in Ireland. I do not think it is possible to say that the troubles in Ireland

are the result of the Stormont Parliament being in existence. In my view, the reverse is the case. The fact that Stormont was necessary was a sign of a troublesome Irish situation that had existed for much longer.
I draw this analogy with the Stormont Parliament. If either the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) or the present Prime Minister had had as much sense as Gladstone, he would have realised before now that he could do something in a sweeping way that Gladstone had no chance to do. We know that if Gladstone had had the chance to do it, there would not have been the Northern Irish Parliament that there is today.
I do not regard the Liberal Party, the Welsh National Party or the Scottish National Party as existing in isolation. All over Eurpoe there is a move away from the unitary, centralised type of State. There is a move towards giving minorities more say in the running of their own affairs. It would be in line with the great traditions of this House to see those principles adopted here as soon as possible.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: First, I must congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) on his maiden speech. His constituency is a very beautiful county which many of us have visited, and he is very fortunate to represent such a lovely part of Scotland. He spoke with great conviction and without apparent nervousness. Although he made a thoughtful contribution, he was not without being controversial from time to time, and we look forward to hearing him again.
I want also to take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As an old friend and colleague may say that it has come as a considerable pleasure to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, and especially those from Wales, to see you elevated to the Chair. We have been aware of your spiritual elevation over the years, and you have occupied the Vice-Chair of the Methodist Conference, the greatest honour that that great denomination can confer upon a layman. We are pleased to see you in the Chair in this House, and we hope you will be there for many years to come.
Since I am in a congratulatory mood, perhaps I should continue by congratulating the members of the Royal Commission on their hard work in producing this massive document. We all tend to look at it subjectively and when I first saw it, I immediately read the chapters relating to Wales. Only then did I go on to study the remainder. A great deal depends on the part of these islands that we come from and to which of the political parties we belong.
The Government action which emerges from the report will affect the lives of the English, the Scots and the Welsh for generations, and it behoves this House and the Government to give it the most careful scrutiny and consideration.
There has been a tendency in some quarters to say "We accept Kilbrandon" or "We want to see the immediate implementation of Kilbrandon", in the manner of an evangelist referring to the Sermon on the Mount. Before the print was dry on the report in November, some right hon. and hon. Members and members of certain political parties were saying that they accepted it.
But what precisely are they accepting? I refer now more specifically to Wales. It is necessary to look at the report and at what it actually says and also at what it rejects, because anyone who says that he accepts Kilbrandon by implication accepts the arguments against separatism and federalism as well.
After sitting for four and a half years and sifting an enormous amount of evidence from all quarters, the commission came to certain conclusions on the two proposals of federalism and separatism. These have been the basic policies of the two nationalist parties and of the Liberal Party respectively.
On separation, the report says in paragraph 497:
For separation to succeed it must command the general support of the people concerned. If it is not widely supported it is a complete non-starter; if it has that support then even the most serious economic obstacles will not be allowed to stand in its way. In our judgment the necessary political will for separation does not exist. The vast majority of people simply do not want it to happen. We believe that the national aspirations of the Scottish and Welsh peoples and their desire for better government are more likely to be satisfied within the United Kingdom than outside it.

That is the conclusion of the Royal Commission on the argument for separatism.
Now I come to the argument about federalism, which the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) was rather shy to mention. The report says in paragraph 539:
It would probably be regarded by the British people as a strange and artificial system not suited to their present state of constitutional development, and in the end would bring the provinces very little more independence than might be achieved within the unitary system. In short, the United Kingdom is not an appropriate place for federalism and now is not an appropriate time.
When hon. Members says that they "accept Kilbrandon", they have to bear in mind what the commission said—

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Kilbrandon Commission also rejected the evidence of the Labour Party given on 26th and 27th January 1970 in which its representatives foresaw a system of local government on a two-tier basis with a Council for Wales within that context? Did not the Kilbrandon Report reject the idea of devolution, if devolution it be, in a local government context? Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that before the Kilbrandon Report was published we had said that we would welcome any step forward which contained a legislative element, a financial element and an elected element? Are not all three in the Kilbrandon Report?

Mr. Hughes: I shall deal with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention as I proceed with my speech. On the first part of his question about the evidence of the Labour Party, it will be clear to anyone who has read the report that the Labour Party's proposals match up to the broad pattern of recommendations made by the commission more than anything that the Liberal Party or either of the nationalist parties put forward in their evidence.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The whole burden of the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was an attack on the Liberal and National Parties for accepting Kilbrandon. It must be made clear, certainly from the Liberal bench, that we did not accept Kilbrandon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and


Shetland (Mr. Grimond), when introducing his Bill just before the dissolution of Parliament, made it clear that this did not represent Liberal policy, but that it was a possible start. It was on that basis that we adopted the major part of the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Hughes: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about his right hon. Friend's Bill, but with respect. Liberal policies on this subject have varied enormously over the years. Looking back over the last century I could mention at least 10 Liberal policies on devolution. I was not, in fact, attacking either the Liberal or the nationalist parties. I was seeking to analyse their official policies in relation to the Royal Commission's report. I believe that I have done that reasonably objectively and fairly.
The hon. Member for Argyll referred to the possible results of a referendum in Scotland. He speaks with greater knowledge than I of Scotland. If, however, there was a referendum in Wales on federalism or separatism I have no doubt that it would be rejected totally by a large majority of the Welsh population. The position in Scotland may conceivably be different.
The nationalist argument, which, I accept, is genuinely held, sees the proposal for a legislative assembly as a staging post towards total independence. But that was not the view of the members of the commission who rejected independence. Nor, indeed, were they unanimous on the proposals that they made. There was not a majority view for any Welsh solution. It was the kind of minority situation to which we are becoming accustomed in the House.
Neither the Government nor the House are tied in detail to any of the proposals in the report, but certain conclusions in it are of great importance, and the House will ignore them at its peril. Some of them were mentioned by the hon. Member for Colne Valley.
We could have a profitable debate on those chapters in the report, Nos. 9, 10 and 27, dealing with the failure of communication between the Government and the people, and the general dissatisfaction that exists. The House should return to them in due course for a full day's debate.

The evidence there shows that this is a central problem, and it is worth bearing in mind that the impending creation of much larger local government units may increase the discontent.
The theory is that centralisation makes for greater efficiency and a better use of resources. The fact is that our experience in this House—for example, with electricity boards, gas boards, and other public undertakings—does not bear this out. The remoteness of administration makes for endless frustration. As Members of Parliament we know this well, because the incorrect electricity accounts produced by the great infallible computer usually end on our desks. There are too many nominated bodies which are not answerable quickly and effectively to elected representatives.
It is important also to realise that the report does not stand on the status quo. Its total conclusion is in favour of devolution, and of devolution to democratically elected bodies. The commission summarised its general view in the short paragraph 1224:
Devolution, therefore, is not a cure for all the faults of government. But we think it could do a great deal to cure the particular faults with which we have been mainly concerned, those which are essentially regional in character.
Wales has a long history of attempting to secure various measures of devolution. I will not weary the House with a dissertation on these tonight. However, we have made more real progress in devolution since the war than in all the centuries since 1282. One of the most remarkable facts of history is the survival of the Welsh people and language after seven centuries in the shadow of a large and powerful neighbour. Our language has, unhappily, declined, but we are determined to preserve our identity as a people and to save our language.
It is in this context that I have been looking at the Kilbrandon Report. The question is: what form of devolution will help us to achieve that objective and will be the most beneficial and acceptable to the Welsh people as a whole? That is the question that my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government must consider and answer.
I have spoken of the progress that has been made since the war. The two Labour Governments have a splendid


record. We have built up an effective Civil Service in Cardiff. We set up the Welsh Office with a senior Minister in the Cabinet. We created the Welsh Council—true it is a nominated council—and passed the Welsh Language Act 1967. We have helped to set up Welsh schools and have made grants towards the publication of Welsh books. We set up this very Commission on the Constitution that we are debating today. It was appointed by my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. These measures are not to be shrugged off as of little moment. They are historic achievements.
We are now poised on the threshold of a new advance. The Labour Party is committed to setting up a directly elected assembly for Wales with substantial powers, and we look forward to reading the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales in due course. He has already been criticised for delay.

Mr. George Lawson: My right hon. Friend has referred to a directly elected assembly with substantial powers. Does he mean that it will be a law-making assembly?

Mr. Hughes: I propose to deal with that point later.
My right hon. and learned Friend has been criticised for delay. What delay? He has been in office for a fortnight. Surely after seven centuries he is entitled to a few months to produce proposals It is monstrously unfair that anyone should charge my right hon. and learned Friend or, for that matter, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland with delay. My right hon. and learned Friend is right to enter into consultations with the various interests in Wales which will be affected.
I turn now to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mother-well and Wishaw (Mr. Lawson). The possible functions of the new elected assembly in Wales could be divided into three parts, like Caesar's Gaul.
The first part would consist of the important advisory functions of the Welsh Council which are now vested in a nominated body.
The second part would consist of the powers now vested in the ad hoc nomi-

nated bodies to which I have referred and to which the hon. Member for Colne Valley referred. I will not go into them, in the interests of brevity, but they are dealt with in paragraph 873, and paragraph 872 states that there was strong feeling in Wales that they should be supervised by an elected body.
Lastly, I believe that the assembly should be given a range of executive powers. I am attracted to the recommendations of Lord Foot and Sir James Steel which are summarised in paragraph 1170. I speak with some measure of Liberal authority on this point.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that Lord Foot's views are based on the fact that there should be uniformity throughout the United Kingdom? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he recommends that the Government should adopt the same system for the regions of England as well as for Scotland and Wales?

Mr. Hughes: I am surprised to hear a Liberal recommending uniformity. That is no reason why we should proceed on a postage stamp basis. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are historic differences between Wales and Scotland. Scotland has its own system of law, and we have always recognised that that is a significant difference which must lead any Government to treat the two countries, to some extent differently. So much for the argument about uniformity.
The powers which Lord Foot and Sir James Steel recommend in the report are significant and important, and I am sure that hon. Members who have studied them—as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is now doing for the first time—will realise that if my right hon. and learned Friend does give these powers to an elected Welsh assembly it will have substantial and worthwhile work to perform.
Relevant White Papers could also be debated in such an assembly, and I see no reason why certain statutory instruments should not be scrutinised there. Again, certain relevant Bills could be given a First Reading in it. It is important that this House of Commons and the central Government should have the


views of Scotland and Wales and also of the regions of England.
I now come to a crucial point. If money is raised and allocated on a United Kingdom basis, a Welsh Minister in the Cabinet seems to me to be essential. I prefer a Secretary of State for Wales and one for Scotland to another nominated Exchequer board such as is proposed by the Royal Commission.
I wish the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend well in their deliberations on this subject. I hope that before the end of this year we shall be discussing positive proposals which will lead to legislation and to the formation of democratically elected assemblies in Scotland and Wales.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I am conscious that this is a controversial topic and one which might not have lent itself to a maiden speech. On the other hand, I believe that whilst there is a great controversy it is not necessarily party controversy, and I believe, too, that it is not beyond the wit of man to find a great deal of common ground on many aspects of the subject.
Before I address myself directly to the subject under discussion, perhaps I may be permitted to express a few thoughts about my constituency and to start by mentioning the previous representative for the constituency who, curiously enough, remains with us in this House as the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney). I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has done for the constituency in the past, and perhaps I can say in a personal way that I am grateful to him for moving over to Central Dunbartonshire to smooth my way to this place. I am glad, too, to say that we have been able to co-operate on matters of mutual interest to our constituents.
East Dunbartonshire encapsulates most of the main facets of Scottish life within the constituency. We have the new town of Cumbernauld, which was once an exciting experiment and I think might now be described as a living monument to social and economic thinking. Kirkintilloch is an older and more settled community with more traditional industry. In between those two towns there

is an area in which the inhabitants are concerned largely with mining and agriculture. Bearsden, which is separated geographically from the rest of the constituency, is mainly residential, but its inhabitants play a major rôle in the whole industrial and social fabric of the West of Scotland.
I said that East Dunbartonshire encapsulated many of the facets of life in Scotland. I should have chosen to say that it was "a microcosm of Scotland" had not my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Ancram) used that expression in his maiden speech the other day. It may be of encouragement, at least to some members of my party, that two of the new Scottish Conservative Members come from constituencies which are so representative of Scottish life. At any rate, because the constituency represents so much of the life of Scotland I feel that it gives one a starting point from which to play a part in this debate.
Although I am new to the House, I am not new to the study of its place in out constitution. Indeed, for much of the past decade I have been privileged to play a small and humble part in the development of Scottish Conservative policy on devolution. That work has taught me two things above all: first, that we need to balance emotion with the hard facts of real life. That is not in any way to decry the importance of emotion. Surely that is one of the things with which we are here to deal.
Nevertheless, when we come to talk about constitutions trying to meet the real feelings and wishes of people we must balance these with the knowledge that in any constitutional change we shall be making a fundamental change in the way in which we run our society and that that cannot be done lightly or ill-advisedly.
Secondly, slogans are no substitute for solid policy developments. In terms of solid work, we have the report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution. It is a solid work to work one's way through, but it seems to me that whilst it is very sound on analysis and, indeed, sound on what is not wanted—and up to that point may commend itself to a great majority of the Scots people at any rate, which is all that I can speak for—the great weakness of the report is in its


positive proposals for what it might be doing. It is too diffuse, and in many cases it insufficiently explains how its proposals would be carried through.
An example of what I mean is the reference at one point to the possibility of Ministers being appointed to operate in the assemblies envisaged, and the Ministers, the report says, should be appointed by the Crown, but it omits to tell us who will advise the Crown in the matter. The answer to the question of who advises the Crown in the matter appears to be of fundamental importance in terms of defining the nature and characteristics of the assemblies put forward by the Royal Commission.
I welcomed the other day the commitment of the Leader of the House to retain the office of Secretary of State. I hope that that implies a commitment to maintain the full Scottish representation in this House. In view of the weaknesses of the Kilbrandon Report and the recognition by the Leader of the House of the importance of the rôle of the Secretary of State, the Government's own definitive proposals might better be based upon the work of the Scottish Constitutional Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home) than on the Kilbrandon Report itself. They may find it easier to evolve definitive proposals on that report.
One thing that I have always found in relation to views about these matters is that there is confusion in the minds of many people as between the functions of a legislature and those of an executive. There is perhaps not enormous scope for a much more dramatic evolution of the executive functions of government because substantial devolution has already taken place, but in marked contrast to that, and perhaps because of that, there is a pressing need for a legislative devolution or a devolution of legislative-type functions to control the executive functions which have already been devolved. There also sometimes seems to be a confusion between devolution within a unitary State and separation of nations, but that is a theme that I will not develop at this moment.
I firmly believe that the whole of the United Kingdom is of far greater consequence than the sum of the nations which have together made it great. I

also believe that in an increasingly complex society we must address ourselves to a much greater diffusion of power. When I use the word "diffusion" I am thinking of a pamphlet produced by the previous Lord Chancellor some years ago in which he built up this theme. That word is something of which we should take considerable notice in the weeks to come.
It would be immensely satisfactory to me as a new Member if a major step forward could be made in this direction in my first Parliament.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I should like to compliment the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Henderson) on a calm and closely reasoned speech. As usual in a maiden speech, he referred to his constituency, but he went on to deal with the subject matter of the debate. Too often, perhaps, maiden speeches say nothing about the subject matter of the debate in which they are made. His was a very useful contribution.
I was struck by the hon. Member's statement that we should be making a fundamental change were we to act in accordance with the recommendations of either the minority or the majority report by the Royal Commission. We should certainly consider the pros and cons of the suggestions. What we normally speak of as Kilbrandon—not the minority dissenting report—is singularly lacking in arguments to justify its proposals. It is depressing to think that all those learned people spent so long and in effect came up with answers that some might say were already conclusions in their heads before they considered the evidence.
A Royal Commission of this kind does not greatly impress me and I should like to consider some of the questions with which it was concerned but which it did not answer. Lord Crowther-Hunt said in his speech in another place that although the majority report listed a number of questions with which people were said to be dissatisfied, nowhere did it say whether those grievances were valid and whether its suggestions would rectify them.
The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) talked about Stormont. Stormont is to my mind the product of


a divided society. To understand Irish relations one has to go back over the long history of struggles, humiliation and the plantation policy. Every Irishman is full of Irish history, which has been a long process of humiliation, or at least a feeling of humiliation, giving rise to extreme nationalism which has made government difficult. Stormont is an expression of that division.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that, although there may be a divided society in Ireland, the Unionist Party does not accept class divisions? When I first came to England to practice at the Bar in London I was astounded to hear talk of the "upper class" and the "lower classes". I do not accept that: I condemn it. Yet it is practised, and I hear those expressions on both sides of this House.

Mr. Lawson: That type of division may exist here, but it is not the same as the division that one sees in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman may say that the Unionist Party thinks in a certain way, but Ireland is a terribly divided society and has been for many years. We are suffering now from that fact. Stormont is not a governmental product or the result of calm judgment of difficulties. It is the product of division and it has not rectified the division.
My hon. Friends in the Scottish National Party—perhaps I should not call them my friends, although they come from the same country—talk about self-government for Scotland, by which, I take it, they mean separation, sovereignty, complete home rule. If a barrier were erected across that part of Scotland we call the Borders, there would be two foreign countries. [Interruption.] If hon. Members want Scotland to be a sovereign country, completely controlling its own destiny, so far as any small country can do so, it would be a foreign country to England, although the language would be about the same.
That would mean that there would no longer be such a nationality as British. Many of my hon. Friends think of themselves as Scots. We might even know much more about Robert Burns than members of the National Party, if our

power to render "Tam o' Shanter" or "The Twa Dogs" may be taken as a certain measure of Scottish culture. Many of us treasure our Scottish nationality and might even write "Scottish" in hotel registration books abroad—but we also treasure our British nationality. If there were a separate sovereign Scotland, there would be no such thing as British nationality.

Mr. Donald Stewart: So what?

Mr. Lawson: I am happy that the hon. Gentleman asks that. If my fellow countrymen want it that way, if they want there to be no such thing as British nationality, if they want there to be Scots and English and nothing but, all right. However, many people in Scotland would be deprived of something which they now treasure.
Why all this concern with Kilbrandon and what is called devolution? Seldom is there an examination of what is meant by "devolution". It seems to me little other than the setting up of some kind of elected assembly, whether legislative or executive. I am not sure what my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) stood for. I gained the impression that he did not mean a lawmaking executive; he meant an assembly having some control but not a legislative assembly, although apparently he was prepared to grant that to the Scots. These matters should be studied seriously, but even in the majority Kilbrandon Report they are not so studied. For this and other reasons, it is a very unfortunate report emanating from such eminent people.
The upsurge of Scottish nationalism was mentioned and it was said that out of the Hamilton result came the Royal Commission. I can tell my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members not to give way to panic of this sort. It is perhaps forgotten that in 1945 a certain gentleman won Motherwell for the Scottish Nationalists. He appeared at the Bar of the House but refused to have sponsors who were not Scots, and apparently no Scots here could properly sponsor him. Eventually sponsors came forward, but it took a long time. He was here for only a few months and went out at the General Election. It is usual for people of that type to go out at General


Election. However, the gentleman who went out at the General Election in 1945 got a better vote in Motherwell in 1945 than the Scottish National candidate got in 1974.
The Scottish National Party is not a new party. We have had Scottish nationalism ever since we have had what might be called a Scottish nation, ever since the Union of Parliaments. Has Scotland suffered—does Scotland suffer—as a result, for example, of the Union of Parliaments? Is it suffering now because of the existing set-up?

Mr. Donald Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Lawson: If I could be shown in what way Scotland was suffering as a result of our two peoples becoming one people, I might become an even more ardent Scottish nationalist than hon. Gentlemen opposite, even than the hon. Lady. It is difficult to find evidence that my part of Great Britain has suffered as a result of that.

Mr. Stewart: The report of the National Children's Panel showed that in the south-east of England one child in 47 is disadvantaged at birth. In Britain as a whole the ratio is one in 16. Scotland has the worst figure in the United Kingdom—one in 10 are doomed to failure, disadvantaged from the day they are born. Would the hon. Gentleman care to say something about that?

Mr. Lawson: That may be true, but it is not to say that it is the fault of England or of London. I will give some history. If ever there was a city which was the creation of the Union of Parliaments, it was Glasgow. At that time Glasgow was nothing. Because it had open to it the English colonies, Glasgow was able to pinch the tobacco trade, and subsequently many other things enabled Glasgow to become for a time the second city in the Empire. That Scotland has declined relative to other parts of Great Britain in the last few years has not come about because of any machinations by the people of London or of England. It is because Scotland's geographical position is not now so advantageous and because it has a heavy preponderance of nineteenth century industry. For years Scottish Labour MPs have been trying to persuade the Government in London to intervene to rectify that situation.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I hope my hon. Friend will avoid falling into the trap that other Scottish Members are baiting for him when they pretend that Scotland is worse off because it is part of the United Kingdom. I refer him to paragraph 590 of the Kilbrandon Report which deals with research paper 10, which I commend to hon. Members opposite, on the financial viability of Scotland and Wales if they were independent and which states:
It will be seen from these figures that public expenditure per head in Scotland has risen sharply in recent years, and in 1969–70 stood at 31 per cent. above the corresponding figure for England…in material terms Scotland stands to gain most by retention of the present system.

Mr. Lawson: For years we have tried to keep hidden the fact that we have been getting so much more out of the public purse but now, because of the Scottish National Party, it is all brought out into the full light of day and I fear that we shall not be able to sustain this position for much longer.
Kilbrandon conducted a national survey in Scotland which found that half the people of Scotland did not even know that we had a Scottish Office and the other half had not the vaguest idea of what the Scottish Office did.
Hon. Members must know that for many years the Scots, whether they have made a good job of it or not, have virtually legislated for Scotland in separate legislation. Our Bills have been drafted at the Scottish Office. They have been handled by Scottish Ministers. They have gone to Scottish Committees. On the Floor of the House our Bills have been handled virtually exclusively by Scottish Members, and even the Welsh dared not intervene. It may be that we have not always made a good job of it, but the fault lies with ourselves. Scotland has suffered over the years as much if not more from the Scots than from anybody else.
In my constituency Ravenscraig is a plum in terms of industry. Without Ravenscraig and the steel mill Scotland would be in a much worse state. The decision to have a strip steel mill at Craigneuk was taken not by Colvilles the Scottish steelmakers, or by Sir Andrew McCance, the king of the steelmakers, who was dead against it. The decision was taken by the Government of Harold Macmillan in London. Similarly they had


to twist the arm of the motor car manufacturers to go to Bathgate. None of this would have happened without pressure from the South, and some might say that the same applies to Linwood. These developments have taken place because of pressures from the South.
If the people in the Highlands knew what was good for them they would not want to have a Government based on Edinburgh or Glasgow. Edinburgh and Glasgow are far less romantic about the Highlands and the kilt than are the people in London. The Government in London have a romantic idea about the Hebrides. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) wants the Hebrides to be given motor roads on the same basis as the south-east of England.

Mr. Donald Stewart: What a hope!

Mr. Lawson: If the Government of Scotland were based on Edinburgh, the Highlands would be dealt with much more toughly than they have been dealt with.
Again, on the oil question, we would quickly find that if there were any suggestion that Scotland should get North Sea oil, the Shetlanders would be insisting that they were not Scots at all, and we would find that Scotland had its own internal differences.
It is impossible to find any proposals in this report which rectify the situation, and by and large I would put the majority of the proposals of the Kilbrandon Report into the waste-paper basket.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: May I take this, my first opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to congratulate you on your elevation. May I, without in any sense seeking to impugn the impartiality of the Chair, hope that you will pay as much attention to my party in this Chamber as you have always done in Wales.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The hon. Gentleman will learn what the rest of the House knows, that I am completely neutral.

Mr. Thomas: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for bringing me to order. I hope you will not have to do so too often in future.
I will not follow the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Lawson) on the question of Scotland, but, having made my maiden speech last week, I should like to congratulate the hon. Members for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Henderson) and for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) on their maiden speeches. I particularly commend the speech of the hon. Member for Argyll which showed depth of conviction, which is a pleasing thing in this House. He said that the setting up of the Royal Commission on the Constitution took place in response to electoral pressure following a certain by-election in Scotland. But for the practice in this House not to intervene in maiden speeches, I would have intervened and reminded the hon. Member of certain by-elections which occurred in Wales in the same period.
The setting up of the Royal Commission was the direct result of the resurgence of the national movements in Wales and Scotland which took place in the late 1960s. I believe that the setting up of the commission was an important turning point in the constitutional development of the United Kingdom. In my view the United Kingdom is an example of a multinational State which has been run in the past century or so as a unitary nation-State, and much of the dissatisfaction in Scotland and Wales and in the English regions spring from an overcentralised structure of government. Any attempt to increase democratic participation in the United Kingdom must begin from a recognition of the historic fact of differing national groups being squeezed into the straitjacket of the unitary State.
The setting up of the Royal Commission was a recognition that a more flexible and more popularly answerable system of government was needed, and the continuing debate on this subject in the Chamber, particularly since the arrival of certain new Members from Wales and Scotland, has ensured that the reception which the report is having in this new Parliament is far more serious than the reception which it first received in this House on publication. I am glad of this because it is important that we have rational discussion on this issue, although I also believe it is important that we move to a speedy conclusion of these discussions and have


a time scale for implementing the report of the commission.
The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) criticised some of us on this side of the House for remarks we made to the Secretary of State for Wales. We did not criticise him for delay in implementing the report. We said that we were anxious to see a time scale of development, and this is something to which I shall return later. The recent appointment of Lord Crowther-Hunt and the statement in this House imply that the report of the commission will not be shelved and will not be—if my colleagues will pardon the expression—scotched, as seemed likely to happen under the previous administration.
I should like to outline the time scale for progress and the sort of model for development that I should like to see. I shall be referring mainly to the position in Wales, although I may make some references to Scotland. I also have my views on general devolution throughout Britain, including the English region.
Hon. Members this afternoon have repeatedly stressed that the commission rejects separatism. I should like to put on record that I wholeheartedly follow the commission in its rejection of separatism. The concept of separatism which the commission rejects is a concept based upon absolute sovereignty. Sovereignty in the 1970s may be defined as an absolute concept in terms of constitutional law. I detect a strong flavour of constitutional law certainly in the main report of the commission. As regards political realities, however, sovereignty is in my view a concept which is relative. What we must talk about when we are discussing the implementation of the Kilbrandon Report are the kinds of powers which are needed to act decisively over the spheres of life which intimately and materially affect the people whom we represent. If we reject any absolute concept of sovereignty, we can see that a new structure of government for the United Kingdom and for Wales is an ongoing process.
In my view, devolution is a process. It is no end in itself. It is a process which takes place in response to popular demand. I believe that there is empirical evidence, based on social and economic conditions in Wales, that devolution must

now go further than the commission's proposals in the main report. But this is for the people of Wales to decide. There is clearly—this emerges from opinion surveys in the report and from other opinion surveys carried out in the last five years in Wales—a consensus of opinion in favour of a democratically-elected body to represent the people of Wales. We have had evidence of this tonight from hon. Members opposite, and I am glad of this. What we and the Secretary of State have to decide are the minimum functions which are required to make the new body effective immediately it is set up.
There is agreement, therefore, on the need for an elected body. I think there is also agreement on the need for that body to have both administrative and executive functions. Here I strongly agree with the right hon. Member for Anglesey in so tar as he was prepared to commit himself on this issue. I think he was asking for a semi-legislative body or a body which could absorb legislative powers going beyond merely administrative or executive devolution. The concentration of administration in Whitehall is a consequence, I believe, of running the United Kingdom as a unitary State, and the devolution of powers to Wales and Scotland and the regions of England is a necessary precondition of more effective decision making in the United Kingdom generally.
I think that the most appropriate model for executive devolution is the one proposed in the memorandum of dissent, a document which I find attractive partly because it is written in the language of political science rather than in the language of constitutional law. The concept in the memorandum of intermediate levels of government taking over the detailed day-to-day administration of policy on matters of the environment, employment, education and science, health and social security, trade and industry the Home Office and agriculture is one which I wholly support from the point of view of administrative and executive devolution. That is what real devolution is about.
If the people of Wales, Scotland and the regions of England had a similar model, they would have direct dealings with their nearest regional or national capital of government. On day-to-day issues their dealings would be with the intermediate level of government, which


would therefore be nearer to them and more answerable to their needs and problems. Wider issues and thornier problems would be referred to the State capital and the central Government.
Objections from the upholders of the unitary State concept would be that there was nothing like as great a calibre of decision below central Government level. I do not agree. If I were complaining I would prefer to see my complaint in a relatively small "in" tray in Cardiff than in a massive "in" tray in Whitehall. However, having endorsed the need for devolution at an administrative and executive level, I believe that there should also be devolved legislative functions in certain selected, specified sectors. Here I take issue with the memorandum of dissent and support the view of the main recommendations of the commission.
The memorandum rejects legislative powers for Scotland and Wales because in it Lord Crowther-Hunt and Professor Peacock are seeking a pattern of devolution which would have a parallel in the English regions and the two nations. But if Wales and Scotland are considered as national communities rather than regions, there is a sociologically based argument for considering them separately from the English regions. The argument put forward by the main report in favour of legislative devolution is that it would counter remoteness of government and provide a focus for real political interest in Wales and Scotland, permitting a unified approach as between policy and its implementation.
That final argument is the most powerful. If administrative and executive policy can be devolved, so too can the monitoring of that policy and so too can its adaptation and change. There is the danger in distinguishing between the legislative function and the administrative and executive function of creating an unresponsive structure of government. There is a danger that it will create a structure of government which will be insensitive to the need for change, which will have an inbuilt tendency to retaining and executing existing policy rather than to reform. This is why the elected assembly must be established with legislative policy-making functions devolved to it. But this must work within and in harmony with

both the British structure and the EEC structure.
Legislative functions should be transferred over the broad area of domestic policy in the longer term, but that could be done in the immediate future by the transfer of the specific matters outlined it the main report. The regional development responsibility of the Department of Trade should also be transferred in order to maximise local initiative in devising and carrying out industrial development strategy at local level and working and implementing a broader EEC and British regional policy strategy.
We have to take into account the context of the EEC. The memorandum of dissent argued that because power is now in the process of being transferred to Brussels—there has been reference to secondary legislation in the House only recently—it would be inappropriate now to transfer powers back down to this House and from Whitehall to Cardiff. I do not accept that for one moment. If we are looking for greater integration within Europe, as I certainly am, and if we are looking for a pattern of co-operation in Europe, there must be a special place for the smaller regions and for the national groupings in Europe which have tended to be assimilated within the large unitary nation-States.
The Europe we are looking for is one in which Wales and Scotland will have their own access to the institutions of the EEC so that we may have integrated co-operation in the European structure, a structure consisting of self-governing constituent parts able to take vital decisions at a lower tier about their future.
In the process of devolution the Secretary of State for Wales has a vital rôle to play. It would be partly consultative and also supervisory in cases where the functions of the United Kingdom Parliament and the new Welsh legislative assembly would impinge. There would be a transitional rôle while powers vested in the United Kingdom legislative Parliament were devolved down to the new legislative assembly in Cardiff. If important financial powers and matters of external relations, defence and so on were retained in Whitehall, the office of Secretary of State for Wales would be absolutely essential.
I turn now to the time scale for this model. I should like to see a White Paper introduced within three months—I do not believe that is beyond the resources of the Government because they now have a full-time constitutional adviser, whom we are anxious to meet—followed by a debate before the Summer Recess. The legislation could be prepared during the recess and brought in during the autumn. Assuming that the various stages could be completed, we should then be in a position to set up a new assembly in Cardiff on 1st March 1976. That is the date we should be aiming for. That time scale is not unreasonable and I hope that hon. Members on the Labour benches—I hope I may regard them as hon. Friends—will agree that it is reasonable.
Debates about constitutions are seldom inspiring, and many may say that my contribution is scarcely an exception. We hope, through the debate and through implementation of the main recommendations of the Kilbrandon Report, to create a framework in which the people of Wales can take vital decisions about their future. Such decisions will be vastly different from the type of decisions which are far too often taken in this Chamber.
Wales is a radical, Socialist country. A Welsh Parliament would never have passed the Industrial Relations Act, the Housing Finance Act or other anti-working-class measures which were pushed through the House by the previous Government.
A Welsh assembly would be able to implement radical, social and economic policies. That is why I am passionately in favour of legislative devolution. Some of my friends in the Labour movement argue that my being in favour of legislative devolution and the setting up of a Welsh parliament means that I am breaking the traditional unity of the British working class, but I believe that I am strengthening it.
If we can have an effective radical Government in Wales to implement strategy in social and economic policy it can provide leadership for the politically active members of the Labour movement throughout Britain. I do not believe that maintenance of the monolithic unity of the British State is part of Socialism. Socialism must be community-based, and in our

context that community is Wales. Within the context of a Kilbrandon-type legislative assembly we can achieve a greater measure of social and economic progress for the people of Wales.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). Despite what he said about his speech I found it inspiring. Indeed, I always find all Welsh speakers eloquent, including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it is a great honour to make my first speech in this Parliament while you are in the Chair.
I regret that when I asked the Prime Minister yesterday if he would implement the recommendation of the majority report of the Royal Commission to increase the number of Members from Northern Ireland from 12 to about 17 he could not give any such assurance. The Government seem unwilling to implement that recommendation. The Prime Minister had an opportunity yesterday to say that, for the sake of democracy, he would consider the recommendation so as to ensure that Northern Ireland was properly represented in the House.
This attitude by the Government is in stark contrast to the statement in the Gracious Speech that discussions are to begin on the Kilbrandon Report with a view to bringing forward proposals for devolution in Scotland and Wales. I do not believe that my hon. Friends from Wales and Scotland—I mean the Scottish and Welsh nationalists—have been deceived for one moment by the sudden conversion of the Labour Party from its consistent opposition to devolution.
The Labour Government offer discussions in the hope that they will undermine the standing of Scottish and Welsh nationalists and will, hence, enable Labour to win back a few seats at the next election. The Government's offer of discussions is also made in the knowledge that such talk will not even have reached a satisfactory conclusion, let alone be translated into legislation, before the next election. If the Labour Party wins a majority at the next election, all its new-found sympathy for devolution will evaporate, and the Scottish and Welsh nationalists in the House will find that they are as unpopular as the Ulster Unionists. Indeed, the Scottish and Welsh


nationalists experienced such a status until the last election, which resulted in the present minority Government which cannot afford seriously to offend minorities in the House—a situation which will alter if the Labour Party secures a majority in the next election.
However, the Labour Party has looked unkindly on the recommendation for an increase in the number of Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland largely because it seeks support from the considerable number of Eire citizens living in England and partly because, until recent years, Unionist Members slavishly —I use the word deliberately—followed the Conservatives into the Division Lobby for the past five decades.
But this is no longer the position. All that has changed. Like the Liberals and the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, the Unionists will judge every piece of legislation—that relating not only to the region they represent but to the nation as a whole—on its merits.
A greater number of Members from Northern Ireland would mean that there would be a wider spectrum of political opinion represented in the House. It would make the people of Northern Ireland feel more secure if they were seen to be treated as British citizens elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The Ulster people have often been told of the safeguards to protect their rights, but there is not much evidence of these. Increasing the number of Members from Northern Ireland from 12 to about 17, as recommended in the majority report of Kilbrandon, would be a way to demonstrate Westminster's good will. As far as I am aware the minority report does not demur from that recommendation. However I would argue for about 20 Members from Ulster.
It is regrettable that the previous Conservative Government did not wait until the publication of the Royal Commission's report before deciding that the Stormont Parliament should be suspended. The Royal Commission which examined devolution in Northern Ireland up until 1969, when the IRA violence engulfed the Province and caused, to date, 1,000 dead, thousands mutilated, and millions of pounds worth of property to be destroyed, came to the conclusion that devolution had worked admirably.
The report makes no comment on the creation of a power-sharing Executive, or a compulsory coalition, of persons who are fundamentally opposed to each other on political grounds. That is not surprising, since it would not be contemplated for any other part of the United Kingdom; nor would it be received with anything but anger. Even this Government refused to be party to a Government of national unity, despite the grave national crisis. They refused to have anything to do with the Liberals or the Conservatives. They wanted to rule on their own.
Yet, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the Labour Party, with the Conservative Party, decided that people who are politically opposed to one another must serve in an Executive which, I understand, is guided by the concept of collective responsibility.
Although Northern Ireland has had a Parliamentary Commissioner and a Commissioner for Complaints, neither of these Ombudsmen, although they quite properly set out to find evidence of discrimination, was able to discover a single case of deliberate discrimination on political or religious grounds against a person or persons. They found some minor cases of poor administration, but such are not unusual in any region. In Wales, Scotland and even England there are many examples of poor administration. Administratively, the former Stormont Parliament and Government did better for the people of Ulster than the central Government here at Westminster have done for Great Britain.
Not surprisingly, the commissioners came to the conclusion that Northern Ireland was equitably and honestly governed. The first Parliamentary Commissioner, Sir Edmund Compton, said that in his experience the relations between the governed and the Civil Service were far better and closer in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain.
The allegation is often made that Northern Ireland is subsidised by the British taxpayer. I have heard it in this Chamber. There is nothing of which to be ashamed about being subsidised. It is the proper consequence of being part of the family. Many people who make the allegation forget that the Ulster people pay the same taxes as other citizens of the United Kingdom.
The Royal Commission deals with the subsidy allegation in paragraph 1309 and the two succeeding paragraphs of the majority report. It says:
Those who made the allegation"—
that Northern Ireland was subsidised by the rest of the United Kingdom—
were usually concerned either to discredit the Stormont regime—the implication being that the Northern Ireland Government was inefficient and could not manage on its allotted income—or to substantiate the argument that the people of Northern Ireland stayed in the United Kingdom only because of the subsidy they received from the United Kingdom Government.
In the sense that the amount contributed by the people of Northern Ireland in taxation was not sufficient to pay for their share of imperial and domestic services, it was obviously true to say that they were 'subsidised' … But the same was and is true of several other regions of the United Kingdom. The practical difference is that in these other regions the figures have not regularly been made available.…
In any event the 'subsidy' was nothing to be ashamed of. It was a proper consequence of common citizenship. In any state, some regions are bound to be poorer than others. In modern democratic states it is accepted that these poorer regions should share in the greater wealth produced by the more prosperous regions.
That was the conclusion of those who compiled the majority report of the Kilbrandon Commission. It is an answer to those who have made the allegation.
Northern Ireland is poorer than other regions in England for a number of reasons. The same reasons can be applied to Scotland and Wales. The South-East, the Home Counties and London have acted as a magnet drawing the lifeblood from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The young people come here. Very little private money is invested on the periphery of the United Kingdom. That is why Northern Ireland suffers. Many Ulstermen, Irish people, Scots and Welsh are to be found in London. We suffer because London and the Home Counties, the areas of great affluence, draw those people and the wealth away from what were once prosperous regions.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is rather unfair about what happens in some of the other regions of the United Kingdom. Is he aware that migration from Scotland last year was the lowest since the war, and that the num-

ber of people going into Scotland is higher than for many years? The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating when he says that little investment and development are taking place in the areas of which he speaks. I suggest that he comes to Scotland to see what is happening.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am glad that the non. Gentleman made that observation, because I wish to refer briefly to an article by Professor Victor Morgan, Professor of Economics at the University of Manchester, in the Lloyds Bank Review for last October. In that article, on regional problems and common currencies, he deals with how regions become depressed, and talks about the position of certain parts of the United Kingdom. He refers to Scotland, Northern Ireland and South Wales as well as the North-East and the North-West of England. Professor Morgan certainly would not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He says:
Before 1914 the present problem areas of the UK were among the most prosperous parts of the country.
They include Scotland. He continues
That prosperity returned very briefly in the post-war boom but vanished in the ensuing depression. Since then, they have followed the ups and downs of national economic activity, but always with an unemployment rate well above the national average.
Professor Morgan goes on to talk about why those regions are now in a state of depression.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman again, but if he refers to such articles I should like to refer to an article in last week's Listener by a member of the Hudson Institute, which described Scotland as one of the areas with the best prospects of development in the whole United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman does a disservice not only to Scotland but to other regions of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, in decrying much of what has been achieved in recent years.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am prepared to give credit where it is due. Northern Ireland is an example of what can be achieved with a devolved Parliament. It is an argument in favour of having devolved assemblies for Scotland and Wales. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I understand that unemployment in Scotland is about 4 per cent. I do not have the figures for migration from Scotland


to the South-East of England, but I shall check on them, and perhaps I can deal with them when we have a further debate on the Kilbrandon Report.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston-upon-Hull, Central): Is the hon. Gentleman speaking in favour of devolution or integration?

Mr. Kilfedder: I shall deal with that question in a few minutes.
Professor Morgan's conclusions are that the regions are depressed because there is a fall in demand for their products; because of the cost of obtaining goods and raw materials from outside those regions. He goes on to say that:
A more subtle, and even less discussed, effect may arise from the centralisation of the capital market in London. In certain circumstances, this may cause a region to become virtually an enforced exporter of capital, and so it raises the kind of question posed by economic historians in relation to the operation of the early nineteenth-century banking system within the UK and the late nineteenth-century international capital market centred on London.
Professor Morgan went on to deal with insurance premiums and pension contributions, nearly all of which are paid to funds administered outside the region. He adds that there will be a net capital export.
Given the choice of a devolved assembly or integration, I am in favour of integration with an assembly. But I support the demand for a Stormont Parliament. Though I accept the present Assembly as a third tier, I totally reject the enforced power-sharing Executive which has been forced on the people of Northern Ireland and the proposed Council of Ireland. The Council means that Northern Ireland is made different from the rest of the United Kingdom, and I want Ulster to be on the same footing as Great Britain.
The allegation that Ulster is living on United Kingdom subsidies is rubbish when it is remembered that the whole of the United Kingdom is being subsidised to a colossal extent from abroad. More money will be borrowed shortly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know how many thousands of millions of pounds he will borrow to subsidise the nation. No one need raise the allegation of subsidies for Northern Ireland. It

must also be remembered that Northern Ireland produces 4 to 5 per cent. more from its workers than the rest of the United Kingdom: it produces more than it receives. That productivity has been achieved despite the present IRA campaign of violence and the destruction of parts of our industry in the Province. Despite all that, productivity has been higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I am glad to say that the Stormont Parliament did not enact the Industrial Relations Act for Northern Ireland. That was a deliberate decision on the part of that parliament. I am proud of the attitude of the workers in Northern Ireland. Despite the present strife they make a large contribution to the prosperity of the Province. We must give them due praise. Their productivity has been achieved against the background of IRA violence.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the virtue of the Stormont Parliament in not implementing the Industrial Relations Act in Northern Ireland. Will he tell us how he voted in the House on that issue?

Mr. Kilfedder: If lion. Members look at the Division record they will find that I abstained on most of those occasions. I did not vote against that measure. On reflection—and I will be candid and honest about the matter—perhaps I should have done so. Of course, times have changed.
The Industrial Relations Act highlights the weakness of the present unitary system of Government in the United Kingdom. There is a tendency for United Kingdom policy to be determined on the basis of what is good for the English Home Counties and not to consider the effects on Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and certain parts of Northern England. That is indefensible. For decades we have witnessed the inability of the United Kingdom Government to produce any successful economic plan.
Only the Department of Economic Affairs, while it existed, made any headway. It did so while it was under the control of Lord George-Brown, as he now is. He inspired the Department to get down to the task of thinking constructively about regional development. However, even he with all his ability and charisma did not succeed, although he


changed the thinking of the Westminster civil servants. He made them realise that the outer regions of the United Kingdom had a part to play in the economic recovery of the nation.
It was a pity that the Department of Economic Affairs was abolished, although when Lord George-Brown left it the policy of special regional aid gradually withered away. What he did was similar to what the Government of Northern Ireland had been doing since the end of the war, particularly in the Ministries of Commerce and Agriculture. In order that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should catch up with the wealthy regions of England and the affluence to be seen there, massive sums must be allocated to them.
I trust that the Labour Government will think again, that they will say that they believe in democracy for all the people of the United Kingdom, that they will provide for at least 17 Members of this House from Northern Ireland, and that they will provide for Scotland and Wales a system of regional government not dissimilar from the old Stormont Parliament or from the constitutional proposals put forward by my hon. Friends and myself.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) into Northern Ireland affairs, except to say that the most dramatic feature of recent politics in Ulster, when one considers the Kilbrandon Report. was the introduction of proportional representation there and the success this has had in creating an effective Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that the hon. Member will not take it amiss when I say that I wish we had seen the introduction of proportional representation for the election of Ulster's Westminster Members as well, because then we might have seen a more broadly-based representation than the rather solid mass of which he is a distinguished member.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) on his maiden speech, which was both cogent and powerful. I have particular reason for welcoming it because his father was my distinguished predecessor as Liberal candidate for Roxburgh. Selkirk and Peebles. He gave a lifetime of service to the

Scottish people and the cause of home rule. His son's election to this House has brought a great deal of pleasure to my constituents, as I am sure it has to the people of Argyll.
The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) accused the Liberal Party of having changed its policy during the last 100 years on this matter. I plead guilty to that charge on behalf of the Liberal Party. I do not think that anyone would accuse the Labour Party of a similar misdemeanour. The right hon. Gentleman's speech made the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home) look like a raging, adventurous radical in comparison. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Anglesey is not here for my tribute. If his speech represents all we are to get out of the present Government in the discussions of the Kilbrandon Report, it is not very much.
I want to make a basic point. This matter is not new. It is not just a question of saying that the Kilbrandon Report was published only a few months ago and so we have not had time to do anything. It is at least six years since the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire started his constitutional committee. Then we had the setting up of the Kilbrandon Commission. The subject has been on the agenda of politics in Scotland, actively and in detail, for at least six years, and it is not good enough for Ministers to pretend that it is something wholly new which now needs a great deal of time for discussion.
What is needed is a political commitment to Scotland accepting the case for an elected legislative assembly over a wide range of issues. That is the recommendation of the majority of the commission. The right course for the Government is to accept the political commitment and then say that the discussions will be based on that. Without that political commitment we are simply recycling the discussions that have been going on for six years.
We are entitled to doubt the Government's sincerity and commitment on this question. I was astonished that in the immediate aftermath of the election a committee of the Scottish Labour Party which included on it the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State suddenly came out with the proposal that there should


be some form of elected assembly for Scotland. That is the most dramatic and sudden conversion since the Chinese general, whose name I have temporarily forgotten, baptised his troops with a hose pipe, and it might prove to be equally unconvincing. We do not have yet a commitment from the Government, and I hope that we shall press them further in the debate.
During the whole period of the previous Government's administration we were told that discussions were going on and that a Green Paper would be produced. We have progressed from the promise of a Green Paper to the promise of a White Paper. That is progress after all these years. It does not matter much whether the paper is green, blue or white. What matters is a political commitment by the Government that they accept the basic proposition of the majority of the Kilbrandon Commission that there must be an elected assembly. Then, by all means, start discussions in Scotland with local authorities, political parties and others about how that should be implemented, but let us have the commitment first.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I know that the hon. Gentleman is serious about this, but does he think that we in Scotland are in danger of becoming the most over-governed 5 million people in the world? We have community councils and district councils, and now we are to have regional councils and an assembly. We have a Secretary of State and there are 71 of us at Westminster. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there is a real danger of over-government?

Mr. Steel: I concede that the hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. My view and my party's view was that the question of an assembly for Scotland should have been studied first before the local government changes were introduced. We have taken that consistent view. No commitment was made to an elected assembly and, therefore, the structure of government has already been changed underneath. I accept that there is a danger, but it does not invalidate the long-held view that Scottish legislation should be transferred back to Scotland.
Quite apart from the interests of Scotland, there is a House of Commons case for taking legislation away from Westminster. The need for this is apparent when the House is dealing with the Report stages of Scottish Bills, particularly those that run late into the night, such as the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. If a census were taken among hon. Members of all parties and of all regions in the United Kingdom in the middle of the night during the Report stage of a Scottish Bill there would be universal acceptance of the need for Scottish devolution.
The House is becoming clogged. We are unable adequately to scrutinise legislation and unable as a Parliament to control the growing power of the executive, which, inevitably, continues to grow under all parties. Even with a Liberal Government the trend would be no different. Government has become too complex, and we have not changed the structure of our parliamentary democracy to counter it.
Leaving aside the case for Scotland, which is most powerful of all, there is a House of Commons case for saying that we should not put Scottish legislation, which is already separate, through the same overworked machine. If Scottish legislation were taken from here, we in Scotland, as well as hon. Members representing other parts of the United Kingdom, would have more effective control over the executive, and more democratic control in Scotland would bring power nearer to the people. I say "democratic" because the history of the development of the Scottish Office as a response to the request for more devolution of power has shown a growing addition of power to the Scottish Office. Almost every Government have added an Under-Secretary here or an extra department there. There has been recent discussion and debate whether the departments concerned with trade and industry in Scotland should come under the Scottish Office.
The danger is that when more Civil Service departments are piled on one Minister the more power is taken away from Ministers and given to civil servants, and fewer Ministers are answerable to Parliament. The only answer is to change


the structure by having democratic devolution, an elected assembly, a clear division of powers over Scottish Office matters in Scotland and power to legislate in Scotland.
I shall be blunt about the Government's role in this matter. I agree here with one observation made by the hon. Member for Down, North. There is a danger that the discussions will go on. We may or may not have a White Paper. We have been given no time scale, and it will be helpful if we are told about it in the Government's reply tonight. When is the White Paper to be published? However, whether we have it or whether it is still waiting to be published when the next election comes—which will not be long, as we all know—I suspect that, just as there was during the whole of the last Parliament, there will be plenty of discussions and promised papers, but no actual proposals, and nothing done about the matter by the time that election comes.
If the Conservative Party happens to be returned at that election, it will be able to start the process again. If the Labour Party comse back with a larger majority, it will be able to start the process again, though with less urgency because the good will of the Liberals, the nationalists and the rest will not be quite so important.
That is why we are pressing the matter now. That is why we have initiated the debate so early in this Parliament, in order to seek a commitment from the Government.

Mr. Dalyell: Whereas I have always understood the extreme Scottish nationalist separatist case, which includes a Scottish Treasury, what I fail to understand is the Liberal attitude, leaving out the position of the Treasury, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, is crucial in any decision.

Mr. Steel: I was just coming to the difference of policy between the Liberals and the nationalists on the Kilbrandon Report. It is well known that we in the Liberal Party advocate a federal structure in which the economic divisions of the Treasury also would be included within Scotland. That is quite different

from the Scottish nationalist policy of a sovereign State. It is quite different from what Kilbrandon recommended, for I concede at once that Kilbrandon rejected both separatism and federalism.
I recognise that difference, but I believe that the Kilbrandon Report gives us the first opportunity, on an authoritative document, to unite the people of Scotland behind what I regard as the minimum demand; that is, democratic control over those matters which are already separately administered and for which there is already separate legislation. That is something which can unite not just Liberals and nationalists, for I believe that the backing for Kilbrandon goes far wider then merely among those who voted Liberal or nationalist in Scotland. It is felt by Conservatives and Socialists as well.
That, as I say, is the minimum demand. We approached the last election, therefore, not having changed our own policy, but saying that the first priority in the new Parliament is to have a Scottish assembly as advocated by Kilbrandon. The reason is simple. I can illustrate it by referring to what one constitutional expert wrote in a book published, I think, about 10 years ago. He said that it was arguable that the State of Texas got more out of the federation of the United States than Scotland did out of the Act of Union, the reason being that Texas was left with a democratic voice through its State Assembly, and the Act of Union of 1707 left Scotland with nothing.
The re-creation of an assembly, with the powers set out by the Royal Commission, would make that assembly a focus for argument among Liberals, Socialists, Conservatives, the Scottish National Party—the lot. We could then have within Scotland the re-creation of real political argument, argument about what changes we should want, what further powers we should ask for, and the rest, and it would, in my view, give us back the political personality which Scotland has not had.
That is the overwhelming case for it. That is why the Government should give a clear commitment in favour and give us the time scale in which they will operate.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: The debate is continuing for a long time, and I am sure that hon. Members are delighted to take part in it, but it seems to me that, in speaking as we are about the Kilbrandon Report and its sins of omission or commission, we are doing a lot more talking about it here than is being done outside.
I have visited many parts of the country in the past three or four weeks. Although I did not have the pleasure of going to Scotland, I went to various parts of England—one has to bear in mind that the Kilbrandon Report relates to England as well—and I found that no one even knew who Kilbrandon was.
In the parts of Wales I visited—Cardiganshire, Aberdare and Cardiff—I met few people who knew that a Kilbrandon Commission had made a report. Certainly the issue of devolution was not a crucial one during the election. It may have been in parts of Scotland but I do not believe that it was the burning issue. I believe that such matters as prices, wages, pensions and housing were the crucial issues, and it was on those issues that the people made their decision.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: In the election with which I was concerned the issues to which the hon. Gentleman has referred were related to the subject of the constitutional development of Wales. Questions of low wages, high prices and lack of industrial development are intimately related to the whole issue of having a decision-making power in Wales which can revive the economy.

Mr. Jones: I can see the merit of that argument. I am saying that the ordinary man and woman in the street—if such persons can be found—did not vote in the way they did because they were for or against Kilbrandon.

Mr. loan Evans: My hon. Friend had more people voting for him than did all the Plaid Cymru candidates put together. His majority of 30,000 is a substantial one. In this General Election, which was the time when the recommendations of Kilbrandon could have been put to the test, 26 out of 36 Plaid Cymru candidates lost their deposits. The vote for the nationalist candidates was

about 10 per cent., which shows that 90 per cent. of the people in Wales did not consider this to be the burning issue.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend fails to appreciate how kind I was trying to be to my nationalist opponents. I would not like to mention my majority of 30,141. I will do so since I am forced into it. I make these points not because I am suggesting that we ought not to be discussing Kilbrandon or the general thesis of devolution but because it is important to realise that we have a professional commitment on this issue one way or the other.
It is no good trying to kid ourselves that our way is right unless we can bring the majority with us. It is a little unreasonable to expect the Government to produce a White Paper as rapidly as is requested when a fortnight ago that Government did not exist and when some Opposition Members sought to bring them down on Monday evening.

Mr. Wigley: Enough was known about the Kilbrandon Report by the Labour Party for it to include in its manifesto for Wales the commitment to enact an assembly for Wales.

Mr. Jones: I am glad the hon. Gentleman realises that we made a definite commitment.
There is talk about implementing Kilbrandon. When we talk this way, we must spell out what we as individuals mean. The different proposals contained in the Kilbrandon Report are all dovetailed to suit our previously held convictions or our prejudices and biases. Although I do not pretend to speak with any authority on the Scottish aspects of Kilbrandon, perhaps I might say a few words on the Welsh aspects.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) said, in respect of Wales Kilbrandon rejected completely the basic philosophy behind the Welsh National Party. It is all very well for Welsh nationalists to extol the virtues of Socialism, and I commend them for it, but I sat in this House when the leader of their party sat on the Opposition benches. On no occasion did he express any Socialist ideals.
The other possibility, of federalism, which is much beloved by the Liberals,


is also rejected by the report. All that comes out of it for Wales is that the majority report opposes even legislative devolution. Everyone wants some sort of devolution in Wales, but there the agreement seems to end. Six commissioners advocated a legislative devolution, two an executive devolution, three some sort of advisory devolution and two signed the memorandum of dissent. They are not proposals which can be put en bloc to the people. For that reason I welcome this debate, because it enables each party to say where it stands.
It is no good hiding behind the slogan "Kilbrandon must be implemented". The Labour Party's basic views are on record. It is not true to suggest that its attitude to devolution depended on the election results in Carmarthen, in the old Rhondda, West constituency or in Caerphilly.
In 1965 the Welsh Council of Labour passed a resolution in favour of an elected Council for Wales. At its annual conference in 1966 it confirmed it. In 1968 the Labour Government set up the commission. In 1969 we prepared our evidence to the commission. In 1972, during the last Parliament, before we knew the result and before we knew there was to be an election, those of us who served on the Standing Committee considering the Local Government Bill considered an amendment that an elected council should be set up in Wales. The present Mr. Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), said at the time that when the Labour Party returned to power it would take steps to introduce an elected Council for Wales. That was the commitment of the party prior to the election, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales intends to adhere to it.
We have heard it suggested that the Kilbrandon Report is being discussed tonight only because of the successes of candidates of the two national parties and of the Liberal Party in the last election. As secretary of the Welsh Group of Labour Members of Parliament, I can confirm that within days of the publication of the report we

began our investigation and that we produced a draft document within a week in which we said that we as Welsh Labour Members
welcomed the establishment of an All Wales Elected Assembly with real powers as the best means of exercising closer democratic control over those distinctive features of Welsh life … The Group endorsed the views of the majority of the commission that the essential legislative, financial and economic unity of the United Kingdom should be preserved as the best means of ensuring the future well-being of the people of Wales.
I read that document to show that it was produced prior to the election and to refute the idea that we are suddenly objecting to the presence of members of the two national parties.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Does my hon. Friend recall that as a Welsh group of Labour Members of Parliament we also said that, irrespective of what our English and Scottish colleagues did, come hell fire or high water we were absolutely committed to this issue?

Mr. Jones: Yes. We did not discuss this matter with our English or Scottish colleagues. We looked at it from our own point of view and said that this was good for the people of Wales. I am not sure that we would agree with our Scottish colleagues. We proceeded alone with this definite commitment.
Hon. Hembers chided my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey for not spelling out in greater detail where we stood on this matter. We submitted our evidence to Kilbrandon. Prior to the election we said that we were proposing an elected Welsh assembly with real powers to improve the economic and cultural life of our people. We said, first, that it should be directly elected, with no nomination or all the other codswallop; secondly, that it would have real executive powers of action; thirdly, that it would reflect the feelings and desires of all the people of Wales—in the Rhondda, Caernarvon, and Wrexham as well.
Fourthly, we said that it would be a developing instrument of government, its powers being shaped in the light of experience and democratic needs. That is right. No one in 1974 can say whether Parliament in 1984 might want to throw


the whole lot through the window. I do not know.
Fifthly, we said that its financial resources would be so determined that Wales and its people did not lose by the arrangement, because we appreciated the great material help that we gained as part of the United Kingdom. Finally, we said that Wales would retain its full complement of Members at Westminster and its own Secretary of State in the Cabinet so that it would continue to obtain its full share of the work and wealth of the United Kingdom.
Opposition Members have said much the same this evening, but I must make the point to them and to some of my hon. Friends that it is not much good, as Welsh or even as Scottish Members, saying that we want specialist treatment and the same representation in this House. Our English colleagues could say "If you want a separatist type of Parliament, you cannot have the same representation here. You cannot have your cake and eat it." It is no use saying that what we want would be carried by a vast majority in this House. We must take into account the fact that some English Members would express a certain view on this matter.
Those, roughly, are the views of the Labour Party. It is not easy to understand the views of the Tory Party. I understand that the Tory Opposition do not want to talk about this subject yet. That is understandable. There are many matters that they do not want to talk about yet, so we will forgive them.
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is not present, because I want to ask him a question and to quote part of his election address, in which he said:
Liberals believe in a domestic Parliament for Wales along the lines recommended in the majority report of the Kilbrandon Commission.
Surely that must mean a complete rejection of federalism, because the majority report certainly rejected federalism. If the hon. and learned Gentleman attracted votes in his constituency by appealing to people to support the majority report of Kilbrandon, that must imply the rejection of federalism.

Mr. Steel: Mr. Steel rose——

Mr. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman can speak for his hon. and learned Friend, I shall be extremely grateful.

Mr. Steel: I have already spoken for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), because I covered this point in my speech when I made it clear that we are not abandoning our policy on federalism. We suggest that the Scottish and Welsh people should unite in getting the minimum demand of Kilbrandon now, that we should let these assemblies go on from there and then get further changes if we wish.

Mr. Jones: I think it would have been more honest if the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery had indicated in his election address that he was asking people to vote for this assembly now and that they would get the remainder as soon as possible.
I now come to the second point on the hon. and learned Gentleman's election address. I assume that here he must have had some time in mind, but the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) probably will not be able to give me an answer on that. The hon. and learned Gentleman's election address states:
After proper debate, there should be a referendum on the subject.
Are we to take it that that is official Liberal Party policy? If it is, I do not mind. Is it official Liberal Party policy that before accepting the idea of a Parliament or assembly for Wales based on the majority Kilbrandon report there should be a referendum? If that is the policy, it is fantastic to recall that the Liberal Party opposed a referendum on the Common Market. We shall have to await a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee before we know what is to happen to the Liberal Party in Wales.
I was almost wooed by the speech of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). It was a very good speech. In fact, I thought that he was sitting on the wrong side of the House. Be that as it may, I have to remember that when he speaks in this House I am not sure that he always speaks for the whole of his party, and it is the attitude of parties to Kilbrandon that is important.
In October 1968 the Leader of the Welsh National Party, who at the time


was a Member of this House, was asked to explain what he meant by his views on separation. He said:
It means financial separation; it means administrative separation; it means political separation, but it does not mean economic separation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October 1968 Vol. 770, c. 273.]
At that stage HANSARD records "Laughter".
I have discussed this matter with some friends of mine who, for their sins, are economists. They tell me that to believe that there can be financial separation, administrative separation and political separation but not economic separation is a little airy-fairy. Has the Welsh National Party now abandoned its definition of separation as spelled out by its leader, or if we accept its view today about the implementation of Kilbrandon are we accepting a sheep in wolf's clothing?

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I made the position clear in my speech. I stated that I believe, and it is the view of my party, that there is sufficient evidence about the economic and social position of Wales to say that we need to go further than the main report of Kilbrandon. However, I also said specifically that our position was to support the main recommendations of Kilbrandon, and I outlined the ideal model which I should like to see immediately.
Devolution is a developing thing. We must move gradually towards further legislative powers being given to Wales as soon as we have an assembly, but this is a gradual process. It is a process of development.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Member has made one speech on this subject. I should be grateful if he would not make another.

Mr. Jones: I wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would let the hon. Member for Merioneth continue, because I am sure he would help me considerably. I take it from what he said that the Welsh National Party has not abandoned its aim of separation as spelled out by Gwynfor Evans on 15th October 1968.
It seems that everyone believes that there is a need for considerable devolution. I do not believe that it is a ques-

tion of creating a new tier of government. It has been suggested that some parts of Scotland might be over-governed. Some people in Wales think that we have too much government. When we talk about devolution, we must aim to democratise those institutions which exist and to ensure that new ones that are created are equally democratised. We must create organs of society which will allow people to influence events which affect their lives before final decisions are made.
I have heard all sorts of arguments in favour of devolution. One is that it will cure the feeling of remoteness. I do not believe that remoteness has anything to do with geography. Many people living in Glamorgan feel as remote from the Glamorgan County Council as from hon. Members here. It is the bureaucratic nature of many organisations —I am not attacking Glamorgan for this —particularly nationalised industries, which creates remoteness, and not their location.
It has also been said that government now is English government. I go with those who hold this view when they talk about Tory government. The question is not whether English government is good or bad but what sort of government we have. Therefore, what we need is not necessarily more government but better government, and my definition of better government is more Socialist government.
Nor do I believe that the question of where a decision is made is important. I recall Welsh civil servants in a Welsh city, Cardiff, deciding to close a hospital in the Rhondda. The fact that the decision was made in Cardiff by Welshmen about a Welsh issue made it no more acceptable. The wrong decision was made; it did not suit the people affected. So the fundamental argument is not where a decision is made but how far we can take into account the needs and aspirations of ordinary men and women.
Kilbrandon, like many other events of the past three and a half years, has pointed the lesson for working men and women of Wales, Scotland, Ireland and any English region. That lesson is that what we should be doing as working men and women is maximising our strength and unity so that we build a fairer and more just society and that we shall not


do it by permanently arguing among ourselves.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: I am grateful to be able to make my maiden speech tonight and to do so as the representative of East Aberdeenshire. I should like first to mention my two predecessors in the constituency in the last 50 years—namely, Robert Boothby, who is well-known to hon. Members, and Patrick Wolrige-Gordon, who was the Member for the last 16 years. It is not an empty or formal collection of words when I say that I freely acknowledge and recognise the service that they gave to the constituency over that period.
I shall in future, I hope, be able to tell the House more about East Aberdeenshire, its industries, farming and fishing, and about its problems, but tonight I am delighted that the opportunity to make my maiden speech should be on the issue of the Kilbrandon Report and self-government for Scotland. My constituency is considerably affected by the oil developments—the Scottish oil developments—which are taking place in the North-East. We are already seeing the impact of them on our communities.
That subject leads me naturally to the subject of this debate, the need for change in Scotland's constitutional position. The United Kingdom has proved over the years one of the most centralised States in the industrial world. The results of the last election seemed to indicate that it is a multinational State and that some of the nations within it are very dissatisfied and discontented with the rôle which hitherto they have been expected to fulfil. The catalyst for this discussion is the Kilbrandon Report—or rather, reports, since there are more than one.
I have been sad tonight to learn that some hon. Members, apparently, are in some ignorance of the aims of the Scottish National Party. In some I gather that the ignorance is real. In others I suspect that it is somewhat more synthetic.
The Scottish National Party's position is quite clear. We wish independence for Scotland. We wish the same status for Scotland within the Commonwealth as any other Commonwealth country like Canada, Australia, New Zealand. But

we recognise that arriving at that point is an evolutionary and not a revolutionary method, that we shall always have more in common with the other countries in these islands than we shall probably have with any other countries in the world, and that there will be no reason why as an independent country we should not reach arrangements with the other countries in these islands to ensure that they were defended adequately, to see that there was the minimum of red tape and fuss and bother in moving between one country and another. But we would be doing it as an equal and not as a subordinate part of the whole. We consider that the majority proposals of Kilbrandon represent a valuable first step towards self-government.
There is, again, I gather in this debate some confusion about what the Kilbrandon majority proposals are. But we in Scotland are fortunate to some extent in that we have preserved some of our institutions. We already have the judicial branch of government with our own legal system, our own professions. We have part of the executive branch of government. I think that we have an executive branch in our government in Scotland of very high quality civil servants. We have a very useful basis on which to build a new Scottish executive responsible to a Scottish legislature, because that is the missing link in the way in which Scotland is now governed.
We have an executive branch of government operating there which is not responsible to a Scottish Parliament. The Kilbrandon Report recommended that the existing Scottish Office functions would come within the control of a Scottish Parliament. It suggested that others such as railways. civil aviation and broadcasting could be added to this. I suggest, however, that the Achilles heel in this solution is the lack of economic spending power. Without doubt, many of the disappointments and frustrations that we in Scotland have suffered over the years—the consistently higher rate of unemployment than the rest of the United Kingdom; the consistently lower rate of wages than the rest of the United Kingdom; the consistently higher prices than the rest of the United Kingdom; the consistently higher emigration. whatever the figures may be that have been


quoted today, than the rest of the United Kingdom—have been the result of unsympathetic economic policies applied from London, applied in good faith for the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole but not for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
We therefore believe that the Kilbrandon proposals must comprehend economic powers for a Scottish Parliament. We should like to see the Scottish Parliament with powers of taxation.
I gather that there is some division of opinion among hon. Members opposite in this respect. Some Scottish Members would like to see the Scottish Parliament get Scottish oil revenues. Others have set their faces against the Scottish Parliament altogether. Clearly, the oil revenues—the revenues from what is Scottish oil—would be a useful funding for a Scottish Parliament in economic matters.
I comment now on how these proposals should be implemented. There was great disappointment within the Scottish National Party, and indeed, among many people in Scotland at the appointment of Lord Crowther-Hunt to the position of the Prime Minister's constitutional adviser. We have looked at what he has said on this subject. I quote two things he said in relation to this report. He talked of political patterns suggesting that Scotland and Wales would be single-party States. I think that this was an irresponsible statement, because the Kilbrandon Report advocated the use of proportional representation to end the absurd situation in Scotland whereby the Labour Party with 38 per cent. of the Scottish vote has over 53 per cent. of the Scottish seats and the Scottish National Party with 22 per cent. of the Scottish votes has only 10 per cent. of the Scottish seats.
Lord Crowther-Hunt also said, giving this as a reason why the majority report would not be accepted in England—I would hardly have felt that that was a compelling argument in Scottish ears—
We would be able to abolish the grouse moors.
Heavens, is not that what we want a Scottish Parliament for? I cannot understand whether that is an argument for or against it. If Lord Crowther-Hunt is now recanting his previous entrenched position and is prepared to accept that the majority report must form the basis

on which progress is made, he can then play a constructive part.
The second comment that I would make is this. It seems clear to us that the position in England is different from the position in Scotland and Wales. There does not appear to have been deep argument or consideration in England about the regional proposals for improving the Government of England. The state of the art there does not appear to be far enough advanced. That should not hold back Scotland and Wales. The Government should be considering a two-tier approach, starting with the situation in Scotland and Wales as a first stage, and then going on to consider what changes they wish to make in England at a later date.
We have heard tonight some of the old arguments, which I thought were dead, against self-government. They stem to a certain extent from this dependent mentality that we have in Scotland, which has looked to London as the source from which all blessings flow and which has been grateful for even a crumb from London's table. One important thing about the oil discoveries in Scotland, apart from the economic and fiscal value, is the new spirit of confidence which they have bred in the people of Scotland that they have the assets and the ability to be as successful as any other country in the world. We should not be compared with other parts of England or anywhere else. We should be compared with the Nor-ways, the Swedens, the Denmarks and so on. I do not notice those countries having been held back in any way because they are not governed from London. It is no disadvantage whatsoever to them.
We have talked on this subject for a long time. We have heard all the arguments in Scotland. There is a new spirit and a new will in Scotland. I hope that a start will be made to have a Scottish Parliament before too long.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Frank McElhone: First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) on his maiden speech. It was a very commendable effort. Although I shall not follow him in his proposals, I welcome him to the House, He follows Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon, and I am sure that, like him, the hon.


Member has the interests of Scotland at heart. He will, of course, accept that I do not share the views of his party, any more than I share the views of his predecessor. Nevertheless, I extend a very warm welcome to him.
I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on the Kilbrandon Report and devolution. Anything that I have to say tonight is not born out of panic, and that applies to others in the Labour Party representing Scottish constituencies who have been discussing Kilbrandon and devolution for some time. We have some knowledge of Scottish nationalist representation in my city of Glasgow. In my own constituency the Scottish nationalist came in a very poor third, even though he pursued an active campaign.
The views which I express tonight are my own; I do not claim that they represent the views of the Labour Party. I should like to put on record first that I totally reject separatism. The majority of the Scottish people, and certainly the vast majority of the people in my constituency, are totally against the separation advocated by the Scottish National Party. At the same time it would be foolish not to respond to the changing political desires of the people of Scotland. A party which refuses to accept change puts its head in the sand. As an hon. Friend of mine said, who knows?—in a decade's time we may be changing substantially from the position which we adopt a year from now.
I now put my own personal proposals. Because I wish to give time to other hon. Members, I shall be brief, but I hope my remarks will stimulate argument and discussion, and I hope to hear some alternative views. Our local government proposals in Scotland are a year behind those of England and Wales. Therefore, although there will be district and regional elections in May, the full powers will not be taken over until May 1975. Many of the small burghs have now been amalgamated into viable district units. I welcome that tier of local government. Where I differ from many of my hon. Friends is in suggesting to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that he should now suspend or dissolve the idea of regional tier government. I say that because I accept the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian

(Mr. Dalyell) that we could perhaps be over-governed if my right hon. Friend responded to many of the desires of the Scottish people.
In abolishing the regional tier we could create an elected assembly in Scotland. It could be done simply. There is no reason why a party should not select regional candidates and call them assemblymen when they are elected. It might be a psychological advantage if instead of meeting in an office rented in Glasgow they could meet in Edinburgh. The regional council will take over major functions such as planning, the social services and education. There is no reason, therefore, why the assembly could not also take on these major functions and responsibility for the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the water boards and the river purification and similar bodies.
Financing should be carried out through the Scottish Office in the way that local government is financed at present. There could be a block grant from the Treasury. In this way we end up with an elected assembly which meets the desires of many people: it would meet in Edinburgh; it would have power over most of the major functions in Scotland; and it would mean that Scotsmen in Scotland would be allocating money according to the priorities they decide on education, social work, the highways and so on. There may be a case for bringing housing, which is still a district function in Scotland, under the jurisdiction of the assembly.

Mr. George Lawson: Is my hon. Friend saying that instead of having a number of regional authorities we should have one?

Mr. McElhone: Instead of having a number of regional authorities, many of them too small—although I have never supported the Strathclyde Region—there would be a choice of assembly.
There is the prospect of two regional councillors per constituency, and there is no reason why there should not be 140 to 160 members in the assembly. However, that is negotiable, and I put forward points only for discussion. I am not suggesting that I have a panacea for the problems. I suggest a basis for discussion, but since the major parties have already chosen their regional candidates they should not have to go through the process


of selection again with all the agony that that causes.
On payment, I consider the puny sum of £10 a day maximum totally wrong. I served as a councillor on Glasgow Corporation as vice-chairman of the highways committee dealing with, perhaps, £6 million of contracts a week. I was also chairman of the magistrates' committee. I did it all for nothing. Young people have changing aspirations and because of these we are not attracting them to local government service. We shall not attract them with a maximum payment of £10 a day.
We cannot have democracy on the cheap. We must realise this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in making representations to the Government, might consider a salary of at least £3,000 a year. That would be the absolute minimum to attract people to serve in local government and to be responsible for major functions like planning, education and the social services. We cannot expect people to give of their time, which they cannot easily afford, unless they get an adequate allowance. If there is not an adequate allowance the new type of government, be it regional or assembly government, will suffer.

Mr. George Reid: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that elections to his proposed assembly, which we welcome, would be by the single transferable vote, as mentioned in the Kilbrandon majority report?

Mr. McElhone: That is still open for discussion. I must be perfectly honest on the point, but I do not wish to go into it now because it causes argument. However, I accept that an election in which there was a vote for the district and the regional authority would be considered democratic and would be sufficient. It would certainly be accepted as sufficient by the people of Scotland.
However, I do not know whether there is any real demand for a change in the type of voting. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is suggesting some form of proportional representation, which I hasten to add I would be against.
In its propaganda during the election, the Scottish National Party seemed to

concentrate on the question of oil. Some people said that it was the only matter in its publicity material. Several thousand posters were put out by the SNP in my constituency concerning oil and nothing else. I challenged the SNP candidate at a joint candidates' meeting. I asked him whether he could tell me what other policy his party had, especially on major functions. It may be rather unkind to criticise people who are not present, but I have never found anyone in the Scottish National Party who could tell me about the party's policy on anything other than Scottish oil.

Mr. George Lawson: It used to be about whisky.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: rose——

Mr. McElhone: I cannot give way, because I have an Adjournment debate later and I do not wish to take up too much time now.
Let us talk about oil. The matter was raised all the time during the election campaign, although it did not affect the voting in my constituency very much. We have said in our manifesto that revenue from oil will go in a substantial way to the regions, especially to Scotland to assist the economic situation there. I should like to see a substantial proportion of the revenue from oil go to a Scottish development authority which would be controlled by the Secretary of State. I still want to see the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Cabinet.
There should be three tiers of government—district government, an assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament. The assembly should have some form of legislative powers. In major and important Bills the assembly could deal with the early stages and the Committee stage, while First and Second Reading stages would be in this House. If, after a period, the assembly proved itself, there would be no reason why it should not carry out legislative functions of a major nature.
It is, perhaps, not an ideal solution acceptable to everyone. If, however, Parliament accepted the proposal, we should have an elected Scottish assembly, and I think that there is a strong majority


in support of that in Scotland at present. There would be only three tiers of government in Scotland—the district, the assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament—so no one could accuse us of being over-governed. The regional candidates are in the main already selected, and therefore they could go forward for election as assemblymen or assemblywomen. For psychological reasons, they could meet in Edinburgh.
I suggest a minimum salary of £3,000 a year. Democracy cannot be obtained on the cheap. That sum must be paid to secure the right calibre of person to attend to the major functions he would be administering. We should have Scotsmen in Scotland administering these major functions and judging the priorities in spending. We should deal with such legislation and, in the early stages of the assembly at least. with the Committee stages of major Bills.
The Secretary of State for Scotland would still be Scotland's economic Minister and would administer the Scottish development authority, which I hope would contain people from the assembly, the Scottish TUC and the Scottish CBI.
The idea is not born out of panic. It was in the minds of many of us long before the General Election. The people of Scotland, while not advocating seperatism, are looking for a greater say in their own administration. I think that the plan I have advocated tonight goes a long way to meet that desire, but I totally reject the concept of separatism.
I apologise for not having time to listen to the speakers who are to follow me, because I have another engagement, but I shall read with great interest what is said. I hope that the debate will start a dialogue which will be more meaningful to the people of Scotland and at the same time bring greater democracy to Scotland as a nation.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: My first task is to apologise to the House. I gather that it is not the done thing to interrupt Front Bench spokesmen before one makes one's maiden speech. However, I trust that I may be forgiven. I think that the calamitous situation facing our horticulturists and stock farmers is too serious not to be men-

tioned at every possible opportunity. I hope that before much longer we shall have from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries the statement that all of us who represent rural constituencies are anxiously awaiting.
My next duty is to pay a tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Mark Woodnutt, who represented the Isle of Wight for about 15 years and missed few opportunities to press its claims. He will be remembered for his efforts during our fight to attract industry in the early 1960s and for the local Act of Parliament which he steered through the House giving powers to control overnight pop festivals in the open air. I might add that that subject did not come into my election campaign.
Mr. Woodnutt will also be remembered for his success in the battle to retain our independence. I am sure that in that he had the backing of the majority of our residents, though I suspect that he would agree that the county and two-district system which we now have is hardly the right solution or the one that our county council, of which I am a member, sought. For a population of 110,000 in a compact area, surely an all-purpose authority was the right choice. Possibly we shall end up with it, but it is a pity we could not have been allowed to get it right at the start. I suspect that that applies elsewhere. I feel that we have gone about the matter in the wrong way and that the debate should have precluded the reform of local government in England and Scotland.
The Isle of Wight is almost unique. I was going to say that it was unique until I heard the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). I then realised that I could not claim uniqueness. It is a constituency which I am proud to represent. We are grateful to Royalty and to ex-Prime Ministers for their patronage: long may it continue. Prince Philip and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition have given a great boost to our boat builders and to the sailing world. I can assure the Prime Minister of an equally warm welcome. I gather that he is not disinterested in shrimping. The beaches of the island seem to be far safer than those of the Scillies. Incidentally, we have a number of golf courses. If the Prime Minister chooses to pay us a visit, he will find that we have a number of exciting industries,


including a highly successful light aircraft concern which has produced and sold over 400 Islanders and Trilanders. The firm has a healthy order book.
The island is also the home of the hovercraft and of an experimental electric car. There is also the presence of a world renowned electronics firm as well as a number of smaller industries. Nevertheless we would welcome a few more, and the necessary sites are available. We also have an oil rig. When we talk about Scottish oil, I shall be able to say "What about Vectis oil?".
We now have a forward-looking tourist board with local government participation. Agriculture, not forgetting horticulture, is our third arm. There are now 30 acres of largely new glass which is heated by oil and has been erected at great expense in the past few years. Under that glass are grown tomatoes, cucumbers, roses and carnations. The grave concern of those engaged in that work will be appreciated.
As I have spent the past seven years in a local authority, I feel that I can claim to have some knowledge of our problems. It took a great many years to convert my fellow members to the idea that we should support the arts. I am pleased to say that we now make our proper contribution to the Southern Arts Association which is based at Winchester and the South and West Concerts Board which largely provides the finances for the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra.
I greatly welcomed in the Queen's Speech the Government's intention to remove museum charges. Recently we have seen the establishment of the regional health boards and the regional water authorities. However, we feel that we have no real influence over the policies of those bodies, although I agree that the area health authorities should be able to make their voice heard a little.
Our other dire necessity is to have the ability to raise certain finances for ourselves without always having to trim our sails to the diktats of Whitehall. For instance, for years we have been agreed on the need for an indoor heated swimming pool. At last we were on the point of signing the contract when the standstill and later the cut-back of last December were announced.
For an island, the right to levy a small landing charge has many attractions. If the ability to raise finances other than through the rating system is to be denied to county and district councils, it should be accorded to a regional assembly, which would be in a position to assess the priorities throughout the area under its jurisdiction.
I support the scheme for democratic assemblies as set out in the memorandum of dissent prepared by Lord Crowther-Hunt and Professor Alan Peacock. But why do both reports ignore the exciting possibilities of a separate assembly to cover the Southern Counties? I agree with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) in that the Isle of Wight has nothing in common with Lowestoft. Chapter 8 of the memorandum of dissent leaves the boundary issue open. It does not say that the five boundaries are necessarily the right answer. It is pointed out that we already have 14 regional health authorities and nine water authorities. I believe that a Wessex regional authority is worthy of serious consideration. I believe that there was a candidate in the recent election who stood on such a platform. I did not agree entirely with his election manifesto.
Hampshire has the largest number of Members and the biggest population. It appears to be unwieldy while the proud cities of Portsmouth and Southampton have been relegated to district status.
On the island, we have an ancient affinity with Dorset, but I think we would welcome the opportunity to send representatives to Winchester if it meant that, in return, we would have a much more meaningful say in the planning of the region and its transport problems, that recreation, at present dealt with by the Southern Sports Council, would be given real teeth, backed by finance, and that the various Departments of State, some of which are already based in that ancient city, would be more answerable to the electors.
To suggest that we should be lumped with London and its conurbation, absorbing a population of over 22 million people, seems to make no sense. None of the other suggested regions has more than 8½ million people. The present boundaries of the Southern Arts Association include Hampshire, Dorset,


Wiltshire, West Sussex, the Isle of Wight and parts of Berkshire and Oxfordshire. A further London-based authority would do nothing to alleviate the present situation but would only add to the confusion and over-centralisation.
To attract younger people to take an interest in local government, which is highly desirable, there is need to provide prospects of advancement, a sort of career structure through the opportunity to move up the scale to become a regional representative. Certainly we must provide the necessary impetus for those with ambition. I hope that the Government will give as high a priority to the discussion and establishment of regional assemblies in England as I suspect they are likely to now for Scotland and Wales.
I have a Scottish name, and during the election campaign, incidentally, I encountered an English nationalist who said that he could not vote for a candidate with a name like mine. So it works both ways.
We have been talking too long already. We have just experienced a truly historic upheaval in local authority organisation which will take a long time to settle. But that is no excuse for not finishing the job. At a time when we are losing some of our powers of decision to Brussels, there is every need to bring nearer to the grass roots opportunities to make policy and take decisions on those everyday affairs which give rise to so much concern at the present time.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I am pleased to have the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) on his maiden speech. He spoke calmly, cogently and lucidly from long experience of local government, and I am sure that the House looks forward to hearing him with great interest in future if he keeps up that standard.
I am not sure that the Consolidated Fund Bill is the best subject on which to make full-scale speeches about a Scottish Parliament, but I want to make two basic points about the Scottish National Party and the possibility of a Scottish assembly or parliament. It has been said in the debate that because the SNP has made so many gains we should, for

that reason alone, be urgently considering and pushing forward plans for a Scottish parliament.
I would not want to take credit away from the SNP for conducting what was, from its point of view, a very good campaign. To win seven seats in the House was a fine achievement for the SNP. But I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not be bounced by the fact that the SNP has won what is not, after all, a great number of seats into making extreme constitutional changes which, in my view, are not wanted or warranted in Scotland.
I know from my own experiences in Aberdeen and in other constituencies in which I campaigned in the North-East of Scotland—Aberdeenshire, East, Moray and Nairn and Banff among others of the seven seats won by the SNP—that it is untrue to claim that the fuel of the SNP's campaign was any interest by the electorate in devolution. What the electorate was interested in and swayed by was oil.
Most people in the North-East were worried that Scotland would not get her fair share out of the oil that has been discovered under the North Sea. When it becomes clear that Scotland will get her fair share—as has already become clear in Aberdeen, which has benefited to a great extent from it—a great deal of the steam will go out of the Scottish National Party vote in that area. I hope that the Secretary of State will not take the SNP gains as proof that people are shouting for devolution. That is not so, certainly not in my experience in Aberdeen.
I say without pride and without shame that it is an economic fact that Scotland gets more money out of the United Kingdom than she puts in. Scotland per head of the population gets more out of the United Kingdom than does England. Scotland has 9·6 per cent. of the total United Kingdom population. She receives 12 per cent. of the public expenditure on roads, 13 per cent. on improvement grants, 16 per cent. on housing, and 11 per cent. on education.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Gentleman based his example on a population percentage of 9·6. Scotland has one-third of the land area of the United Kingdom. Therefore, should not Scotland have one-third of the expenditure on roads instead of 12 per cent.?

Mr. Sproat: I do not want to be unpleasant to an hon. Member for whom I have great respect, but there is no point in building roads if there is no population to build them for. The fact is that Scotland has 9·6 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom and gets 12 per cent. of the public expenditure on roads, and no one can say that that is an unfair proportion for Scotland.
It has been said in the debate that wages in Scotland are the lowest in the United Kingdom. In no table produced by the Department of Employment does Scotland come lower than six out of ten. On the non-manual male employment table wages in Scotland are above the national average. Let us once and for all get rid of the idea that Scotland is at the bottom of every table. Scotland is at the bottom of no table, and never comes lower than six out of ten.
There is so much nonsense talked in Scotland about what is put into the economy and what is taken out that I should like to put on record the latest figures that I have obtained from the Library for each of the component countries of the United Kingdom. The total identifiable expenditure in 1970–71 for England per head of the population was £100, for Wales £106, for Ulster £114 and for Scotland £120. It was the same in 1971–72 when, again, Scotland had £120 for every £100 that England had in total identifiable expenditure of the United Kingdom Treasury. In 1972–73—the latest figures available—Scotland again had £120 out of the total identifiable public expenditure and only Ulster had crept ahead, obviously because of the present military situation.
Those figures should prove once and for all that Scotland does better out of the United Kingdom than does any other part. I see the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) shaking his head. When England has £100 and Scotland has £120 per head, as the figures show, how can it be said that Scotland does not do better than England? I hope that all future arguments about what Scotland gets or does not get will be founded on that basic premise.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: The hon. Gentleman refers only to identifiable expenditure, which is only part of the

total. Has he the breakdown for other Departments—for technology, for example?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, the figures include the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and other Departments where the calculation is more difficult. The figures are in the Library. If the hon. Gentleman looks them up, he will find that the best possible Civil Service analysis produces those figures of identifiable public expenditure.
I believe that there is a case for further devolution. The European dimension has already been mentioned. The Kilbrandon Report itself mentions the growing gap in communication between Government and people. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Lawson), and I agree with him in not finding any identifiable misery or suffering in Scotland which has been caused by its union with England. How- ever, even though I do, with him, reject that idea, I think that there is a case to be made for further devolution. In that respect, Kilbandon is most useful, though I entirely disagree, as do most of my hon. Friends, with the idea that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be removed from the Cabinet, and with the idea that the number of Scottish Members of Parliament should be reduced.
We were told by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that we should proceed with all possible speed. I regard that as a ridiculous request to put to the Government. After all, they have been in office for little more than two weeks, and it would be absurd to expect them now to give a commitment on a Scottish assembly or Scottish parliament. But, quite apart from that factor, I urge that we consider this matter calmly and carefully, without hysteria and emotionalism, without any attempt to cook the books of United Kingdom finances. This is far too important a constitutional question to be rushed as the spokesman for the Liberal Party would have us do. I advise the House to hasten slowly, carefully and steadily in this matter, for it is more important that we have a correct rather than a quick solution.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Dafyd Wigley: Hon. Members on both sides have made important points, and I shall try to answer them from the point of view of Plaid Cymru. As a nationalist party, Plaid Cymru believes in the existence of Wales as a nation. I appreciate that there may well be hon. Members on both sides outside Plaid Cymru, who take the sane stand in regard to Wales, and there may well be members of the Labour Party in Wales who do not.
Our fundamental approach is that Britain is a multination State. It consists of three nations, Scotland, Wales and England. Therefore, any policies developed in this House must be framed in the context of the need to serve three nations. At present, however, we have one State. which serves different interests in the different parts of Britain. A predecessor of mine as Member for Caernarvon, David Lloyd George, said that one legislature could not serve the interests of the Teuton and the Celt. If that was true in 1920, it is equally true today, and it has been the lack of policies and the sins of omission in this House which have led to our problems today.
A nation is an organic entity. It can grow or it can die. It can be killed, and it can hardly be brought to life again. save by exceptional measures. We want to create conditions in Wales which will foster the development of a full national life for the people of Wales, and we are looking for the system of government which can best do that. We have not yet reached it. As a party we take a devolutionist and an evolutionist stance in that we look for policies that can be developed to this end.
That is where I come to the Kilbrandon recommendations. As a party we have been challenged by those who say that the Kilbrandon recommendations do not accept what we have put forward. We recognise this. We would like to go considerably further than Kilbrandon. We would like to see full Welsh self-government. I do not think that the concept of sovereignty is meaningful these days. Having said that, we realise that it will not come overnight and we are willing to take the evolutionary road to it, to take reasonable steps forward such as are supported by the majority of the people in Wales at a point in time.
The majority of Welsh people support the recommendations of the majority report of Kilbrandon for a legislative elected assembly for the people of Wales. It has been said that this issue may not have come up in certain constituencies during the election. That may be so, because the Labour Party in Wales said in its election propaganda that it supported an elected assembly in Wales, with substantial powers. It did not disagree with the National Party or the Liberal Party superficially. We can hardly expect a raging argument with that consensus of agreement.
When people say that we need more time to debate this, within the Chamber and outside, I say that if the Welsh Labour Party was able to advocate this in its manifesto for Wales it must have given enough time to it in the past to reach a conclusion. The point I want to underline is that there are essential differences between England and Wales. They are differences involving more than purely regional attitude. When people strike a comparison by saying "Home rule for Wessex", or for Yorkshire, we find such comparisons disparaging.
There are differences between England and Wales on many fronts. There are differences on the industrial front. I know this, having worked in industry in Wales and in England. There is a difference of temperament. It is possible to lead the Welsh worker through hell and high water but once the attempt is made to drive him there is trouble. This is a fundamental mistake which many industrialists have made when they have come to Wales. This is why so many Welsh people have become prominent trade union leaders.
There is not only a difference in temperament. There is a difference in the structure of industry, in the part played by heavy industries such as coal, steel and slate and the part played by the primary sector. There are lower activity rates in Wales, and European figures show that there are lower personal incomes per capita. Commercial life in Wales has not been so greatly developed and we do not have the institutions that have been known in England. certainly in the South-East.
In agriculture too there are fundamental differences springing from the


difference in geography between the two countries. The cultural differences do not need underlining. They exist not only in terms of language but also in the non-Welsh speaking parts of Wales. There, the rich heritage of culture that has been converted to the English language is still something that can be identified with those parts of Wales and is part of the entirety of Welsh national culture.
The social aspiration of people in Wales have been well known throughout the centuries. There is a sympathy for the weak, the poor, the underdog. It is no coincidence that it has been Members from Wales such as Lloyd George, Aneurin Bevan and Jimmy Griffiths who have laid the foundations for the Welfare State in the United Kingdom. In the past two or three years we know of the unanimous feeling there has been against the Housing Finance Act in Wales. As a member of Merthyr County Borough Council I was one of the councillors within the countries of the United Kingdom who risked going to gaol because of my stance against it. The social aspirations of the people of Wales are identifiable and have been for centuries. These are things which need a system of government in which they can be reflected.
Most important of all, there are political differences between England and Wales. Never in more than 100 years has Wales had a majority of Conservative Members of Parliament and yet for most of that time we have been ruled by Conservative Governments from London. First of all there was a majority of Liberal Members and then of Labour Members. It has always been radical, always to the Left. Yet we do not always get from such Governments the radical and socialist policies we need. In other words, where these differences exist, what is required is a system of Government which can respond to them.
A farmer with a field of hill land and a field of marshy lowland does not treat the two in the same way. Where there are differing circumstances in two countries, once a common policy is applied one has the recipe for disaster. That is the kind of disaster which Welsh farmers face today, with a policy which works wonders in East Anglia leading many Welsh farmers to the verge of bankruptcy.
These are reasons why we believe that we urgently need an elected legislative assembly in Wales. This is a matter of importance and we must have it now. The majority of people in Wales support it and want to see it happen, and by "we" I mean not only those of us who are members of Plaid Cymru but members of the Liberal Party and Labour Party as well. We want this not as part of local government reform but as a genuine decentralisation of power from London to Wales.
We will take it as it comes. We shall see it as part of the continuing spectrum of European politics and we hope that Wales can develop so as to play a meaningful part not only in Britain but with the countries of Europe. If we do this, we can build a future for the people of Wales. If this House refuses or delays implementation of the Kilbrandon majority report, we in Wales will face the continuing decay of our nation.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: We have heard the voice of Scotland and the voice of Wales. I intervene as a representative of a third Celtic country, Cornwall.
To those members of the Scottish National Party who continually shout "Scottish oil" whenever North Sea oil is mentioned, I might say that we have done rather better. Partly to shelter it from the Irish we have called it Celtic oil, and therefore it belongs to Cornwall from the start.
The attitude survey which was carried out by the Kilbrandon Commission and which was mentioned at length in the minority dissenting report showed clearly that the attitudes to devolution were at least as strong in Cornwall as they were in Wales or in Scotland. From my own experience of representing perhaps the least nationalist of the five Cornish constituencies—it being nearest to England— I believe that that attitude survey was correct.
I share the views of those members of my own party who have spoken already on this subject. We are a distributivist party and we wish to distribute both power and wealth and also to bring power back to the people. The question arises, therefore, what the people want, because


it is not a matter of what Whitehall wants to give them. It is very much a question of the power which they wish to grab for themselves.
It is not enough to say that Cornwall can have the powers or the rights that Whitehall or Westminster is prepared to hand out—the crumbs under the rich man's table, as it were. Whitehall and Westminster can only have the powers that the peoples of Cornwall, Scotland and Wales are prepared to let them have. In this connection, perhaps I might mention the original social contract of John Locke. We gave the central government powers, and we can take them back—and we shall.
Again it is not a question simply of drawing lines on a map and saying that an area is the South-West Region, the South-East Region, Wessex or whatever it might be called. Lines on maps have a way of going through people. Therefore, we cannot do it in that way. The areas must be those which are genuinely drawn in the hearts and minds of the people living in them.
I come, then, to the unanimous recommendations of the Kilbrandon Report and more specifically to what is perhaps the only unanimous recommendation. I refer to that which deals with proportional representation.
Discussing the present relative majority system of voting, paragraph 780 of the report says:
The system, by tending to exaggerate the representation in Parliament of the major parties in relation to their voting strength in the country, and that of the party forming part of the government in relation to all other parties, helps to produce governments which have substantial majorities and are therefore in a strong position to ensure the implementation of their policies.
Unfortunately the Kilbrandon Commission did not sit after the last General Election campaign. Had it done so, I suspect that it would have realised that the faults and errors of this "first past the post" system from which we suffer are more manifest than was said in the report.
It is incredible that we should have had no mention in the Queen's Speech of this gross and grotesque unfairness. It is incredible that the Government should sit there with a 37 per cent. share of the vote in blissful and arrogant ignorance of the

fact that they have no mandate to govern the people of this country. Therefore, in our view the present system is unfair and must be changed.
What is wrong with the system? I should like to refer to the words of a wise and respected late Member of this House, a great independent, Sir Alan Herbert. He referred to Members who did not represent the majority of their constituents as non-Members. There are 406 non-Members in this House. For the first time in three elections I am not among them, because I squeezed 3·9 per cent. off the Labour vote and I now have an overall majority.
I recognise the difficulties facing Labour voters in Cornwall, North. The wasted vote argument applies to them in Cornwall, North as it does to Liberal, National and minority voters of all kinds in other constituencies. I recognise their problem. It is not a problem that ought to be borne by them any longer. In my view there is a perfectly adequate way out of this difficulty. It is a question not merely of individual constituency results but of overall results.
Every Government since 1945 has been a minority Government. The Labour Government is a minority Government in terms of both votes and seats. In 1972 Labour polled 11,654,726 votes, but the Opposition parties polled more than 19 million votes. It took 38,700 votes to elect a Labour Member, 40,400 votes to elect a Conservative Member, and 433,000 votes to elect a Liberal Member. The best and simplest way of evening out these figures is to count each Liberal Member as 400 votes, each Conservative Member as 40 votes and each Labour Member as 38 votes, and we could keep the same single-Member constituencies and results and continue on our way. No doubt the votes in the Lobbies would be very different from what they are. The Liberals gained 6 million votes—19·3 per cent.—but have only 14 Members of Parliament, which represents 2·2 per cent. That is not democracy. It is demockery; it is a charade.
We cannot hold up our heads as a Western democracy and face the dictatorships of the East or anywhere else in the world when we have a system that produces a legislature so manifestly unrepresentative of the people's wishes.


A democracy is meant to represent the will of the people. This House does not represent the will of the people in any form. Therefore, not only is the national result distorted but regional distortions are even more ridiciulous.
I believe that the Kilbrandon Commission got it right when it said that it would be correct and proper to introduce the single transferable vote proportional representation system for the regional assemblies of Scotland and Wales. If it is right to introduce that system into those areas, it is even more right to introduce it into this Chamber and its electoral practices.
It is therefore essential that we should reform our electoral system. It is essential that we change the system in order to represent the views of the people. Some people say that the alternative voting system would be simpler. It certainly would be. For instance, it would mean that those few Labour voters in Cornwall, North would be able to put a first and second preference. Their votes would count. There would be no question of the wasted-vote argument being used as it is for Liberals in other constituencies.
Nevertheless, the alternative voting system would not produce a fair balance between seats and votes in this House, so we have to move to the single transferable vote system, a system which we have imposed at a stroke by a quick piece of legislation on the people of Northern Ireland. If we can do it for them, we can do it for the rest of this country.
We have imposed a single transferable vote system on large numbers of our ex-colonial people. We have done so to ensure that they are moderate, that they are united and that they are united nations, and we have produced results in those countries which are far more democratic than those in our own legislative assembly.
There is no halfway house. It may be that there are some constituencies—large rural areas in the North of Scotland and perhaps even in some parts of the South-West and Wales—where it would be right to have the alternative voting system, but in general the only right thing would be to have the single transferable vote all over the country.
It is utter nonsense to suggest that the constituencies would be too large. Modern methods of communication mean that it is possible for Members of Parliament to keep in touch with their constituents. A total of 47 per cent. of the vote in Bradford for the election of all Labour Members for the city, or 45 per cent. of the vote at Croydon for the election of four Conservative Members, shows that our system is undemocratic.
During the debate on Monday I made a comparison with Guatemala. The Guatemalans have just come out of a general election. Admittedly all three presidential candidates were members of the Army, and there may not have been much to choose between them. But even though they were all members of the Army, the Government of Guatemala did not like the result so they changed it.
In this country we could have done the same thing, but nothing happened. The Government merely ignored the facts. They took all the black cars and the ministerial salaries. They sit there in glory on the Treasury Bench without a mandate to do so. It is a total fraud that 37 per cent. of the votes should be able to take the whole of the ministerial salaries, as has happened.
I do not accept all the various recommendations of the Kilbrandon Report. Nor do I accept all the recommendations of the minority report. However, it seems to me that the minority report in its critique of our governmental system is wise and far-seeing, particularly in the first stage where it talks on the second page of its report of the basic problems of our governmental system being
to provide equality of political rights for people in all parts of the United Kingdom; to reduce the present excessive burdens on Whitehall and Westminster; to provide full opportunities for democratic decision-making by people in all parts of the United Kingdom at all levels of government; to provide adequate machinery for the redress of individual grievances.
Those are sound critiques of our system, and without, I hope, forecasting the future in any way, this document represents a splendid example of Lib-Lab coalition between Lord Crowther-Hunt and my good friend Professor Alan Peacock.
The major recommendation on which all members of the Kilbrandon Commission were united was on the problem of


electoral reform. I find it incredible that the Government should parade themselves as a Government of national unity. The Foreign Secretary gave the opinion to the nation on television that we have a Government of national unity. I believe that a party which parades itself as such and which presumably believes in fairness should, if not commit itself to reform, at least set up a commission or committee to look into the inadequacies of our electoral system.
We are looking to the Government for some announcement of a commission of inquiry into the workings of this system. No honest, honourable member of the Labour Party would deny our right at least to an investigation. If it were learned by the people of the country that they could change our electoral system only by force of arms, that would be a grievous lesson to learn. Unfortunately it is a lesson which stems from Northern Ireland. It is not one that anyone in this country will adopt, but there are other lessons which may be learned. We have already heard mention of Hampden and Pym and the slogan of "No taxation without representation"—

Mr. Michael English: As in the Common Market?

Mr. Pardoe: If the hon. Member believes that there is no representation in the Common Market he may have a fine point to make, but the way to ensure that there is representation in the Common Market is not to come out but to go on to a genuinely democratic United States of Europe.

Mr. English: In view of the hon. Member's concern that the views of the electorate should be well represented by an electoral system, do I take it that he disagreed with his own party when it said that it was against the people of this country deciding whether they should be in or out of the Common Market?

Mr. Pardoe: We have always believed that the people of this country should be consulted on major constitutional matters of this sort. Unfortunately the hon. Gentleman has not discovered that his own Prime Minister has changed his mind so often on this subject that it is impossible to follow the meanderings of that mind. Even now we have no firm

commitment from the Government that they will hold a referendum on this issue. Only three years ago the Prime Minister was saying that he was totally opposed to any form of referendum. He never said that he would put the terms which the last Labour Government would have negotiated to the people of this country either in a referendum or in an election. It is only in opposition, when driven to it, that he has said that.
The reason why we need some method of putting this issue to the people is that this Parliament does not adequately represent the views of the people or give them a chance to express those views properly. Until we ensure that this Parliament is elected democratically, that the people see it to be representative and that the Government represent at least 50·1 per cent. of the electorate—I do not ask for more than that—people will go on saying that they are not adequately represented here.
That is why dissenting voices are growing all over the country and why Wales and Scotland are simmering with rage at the way this Parliament is working and Cornwall is simmering with rage at the appalling new tax burden that this House intends to impose upon it.
I believe that, unless we can reform our electoral system, our democracy will die. Our democracy will not be a living thing until we ensure that people feel that they are represented in this House.
I am convinced, therefore, that until we reform the electoral system the great majority of Members of Parliament will have the uncomfortable feeling every time they see a group of their constituents that more than half of them voted against them. That is not a democratic mandate.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West) rose—

Mr. Edward Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that many of us understood that the Prime Minister was to make an important statement at 10.15 this evening. Can anybody on the Government Front Bench tell us whether it is to happen or whether it is not?

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There could


well be a statement in a very short time. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make that statement. However, I have communicated with my right hon. Friends and can state that in a short time there will be a statement.

Mr. Speaker: Just to get the procedural side of it right, it will, in fact, be an intervention in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. English: To fill in a very short gap, I trust, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has a deep abiding hatred for people who change their views. I had always understood that the hon. Gentleman was not always a Liberal supporter and, indeed, had often supported the Labour Party in the past until he got fed up with it and, as is his right, changed his views, joined another party and got himself elected to the House of Commons. What on earth is his objection to other people doing the same?
I am slightly concerned when I hear this talk of democracy from the minority bench opposite.

Mr. Hooson: What is the Labour Party, then?

Mr. English: We are a bigger minority.
I have never seen any objection to a legitimate system of proportional representation, provided that the consequences are understood. But the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, as I understand it, is committed in his own election manifesto not to a system of proportional representation, but to the single transferable vote—that magnificent system under which in the Republic of Ireland the Government increased their vote, acquired 51 per cent. of the votes and lost and are no longer the Government. Is there any difference between the single transferable vote and the British system of election which in 1951 and in 1974 produced a very similar result? Yet that is what that small minority party opposite advocates.
The single transferable vote in Ireland now has one magnificent achievement. It produces only three parties. It excludes all smaller minorities. Fianna Fail, Fine

Gael and the Labour Party are the parties in Ireland. No other party is allowed in. Is not the argument that a minority should be represented applicable to other minorities, too? How can you sit there and argue that minorities should be represented or a system which would admit you and not any other minority? I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I accept that you are elected by an overwhelming majority.
In the interval remaining, whatever it happens to be, it is of the utmost importance that we consider the possible results of a real system of proportional representation—not an STV system, which is not necessarily a system of proportional representation in itself. A real system would be a system like that in the Netherlands, where the whole country is one constituency and there is a list system. That is possible.
Incidentally, it is also possible that the Leader of the Opposition might have sat in Downing Street for another nine months, trying to get out of his predicament. That was exactly what happened to his opposite number in the Netherlands, who stayed on in office for another nine months, not because he particularly wished to do so, any more than the right hon. Gentleman wished to be left in a predicament, but simply because there was nobody else to form a government.

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman really talking about the Kilbrandon Report?

Mr. English: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the Kilbrandon Report recommended the single transferable vote in the regions of the United Kingdom. I recognise that the Kilbrandon Report was objected to by the Scottish nationalists on that particular—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Do hon. Gentlemen deny it? In their election manifesto—which, in view of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, I should say I have read—the Scottish nationalists said that they believed that a Member should be elected by an overall majority in his constituency.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: There are two types of proportional representation affecting the single transferable vote. We are in favour of one and Kilbrandon is in favour of the other.

Mr. English: There is only one type of proportional representation—that is, the system which happens to represent exactly in the legislature the number of people who vote. What the hon. Gentleman is really in favour of, as I understand the SNP manifesto—although the SNP does not use these terms in the manifesto—is the alternative vote in single-Member constituencies which is, in fact, a single transferable vote in a single-Member constituency, because the single transferable vote has no necessary relationship whatsoever to proportional representation. Proportional representation has a simple meaning: a proportional system is proportional exactly in proportion to the number of seats allowed to exist in a constituency. The more there are, the more proportionate it will be, because smaller fractions will be represented.

Mr. Steel: If the hon. Gentleman had read the report he would know that Kilbrandon recommended a mixture of multi-Member seats for urban areas and single-Member seats for rural areas.

Mr. English: The report, as I understand it, recommended the single transferable vote, but the mixture which the hon. Gentleman is talking about is highly designed to be primarily Conservative and keep Labour in the minority.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said a moment ago that a statement which might be made shortly would be made in the context of the debate which is taking place. May we have your guidance as to whether that means that it will not be possible for hon. Members to ask questions on the intervention?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members will have to put their questions in a particular form—"Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he say…?"

Mr. Speaker: According to procedure I must call the Home Secretary as if to make a speech on the Bill. If he gives way, he can answer questions. Mr. Jenkins.

Orders of the Day — PRINCESS ANNE (KIDNAP ATTEMPT)

10.34 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I regret to have to report to the House that an attempt was made by an armed man to kidnap Princess Anne at about 8 p.m. this evening when she was on her way back to Buckingham Palace with her husband.
The attempt did not succeed, and neither the Princess nor Captain Phillips was hurt.
I much regret to say, however, that Princess Anne's protection officer sustained very severe injuries, and her driver, a police constable and a member of the public were also seriously hurt.
A man has been detained and is now helping the police with their inquiries.
I shall report further to the House when further information is available.

Mr. Edward Heath: In accordance with your views, Mr. Speaker, may I say before the Home Secretary sits down that the House will appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has made that statement, and that the whole House will wish to sympathise with Princess Anne and Captain Phillips over the attack which has been made upon their lives.
We should also like to offer to those who have been injured in the course of duty or because they were bystanders the very sincere sympathy of the House and our best wishes for their rapid recovery.
No doubt the Home Secretary will consider what sort of inquiry should be made into the circumstances. Obviously, the question of legal action may arise, which will determine the timing of any inquiry he may decide should be made. But I think that he will recognise that from those of us who are acquainted with these matters one of the basic questions will be how knowledge of the movements of Princess Anne and her husband came to be made known so that anybody could attempt an attack upon them. But in this we are content to leave it to the Home Secretary and his wisdom and judgment as to how action should be taken.

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful, as I am sure the House is, to the right hon.


Gentleman for the expressions of sympathy, which will be conveyed to those concerned and which express the general view of the House.
As to what the right hon. Gentleman says about matters to be looked into, these will all fall to be considered urgently, but I am sure that it is right to wait until we are all a little better informed before we decide exactly how we proceed.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The whole House will deplore any act of violence against any person in this country. In particular, we have sympathy for those injured in the attack.
The right hon. Gentleman has already said that there are matters of security which he wishes to look into, particularly whether security arrangements at present are adequate. Is he aware that we are happy to leave it to him to look into these matters further and report to the House?

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Donald Stewart: May I express the abhorrence of my colleagues at the news we have just heard, and associate ourselves with the expressions of sympathy to those who were injured?

Orders of the Day — COMMISSION ON THE CONSTITUTION

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Hooson to continue the debate.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: As this is a debate on the Kilbrandon Report, I should like to begin by saying that I am sure I express the views of people in every part of the United Kingdom when I speak of their abhorrence of violence of the kind we have heard about tonight. It is the sincere hope of all those who are concerned with the issues in the report that never shall anyone resort to violence to achieve his aims.
It was the object of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and other members of the Liberal Party to achieve a debate on the Kilbrandon Report early in this Parliament, so that we could adequately consider the great issues raised by that very important constitutional report. The whole House will appreciate the opportunity that has been given for a debate at this stage, because clearly the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Home Secretary have important matters to consider.
I think it is inevitable that there should be a great measure of devolution within this country. A great deal of discussion has taken place during my mature years in politics, and there will be a great deal of discussion in the future, on the degree of devolution appropriate for different parts of the United Kingdom. The one thing that seems to have escaped adequate attention is the question of the reasons. We are part of an evolving society in Western Europe and in this country. It is right to say that from the time that Harry Tudor went to the field of Bosworth and marched on to London the eyes of Wales, and later of Scotland, were switched towards London. They did not stop there. We became a part of a tremendously expanding country. The United Kingdom sent people all over the world. It is part of our history that we populated and developed a great part of the globe.
Whether in the glens of Scotland, in the valleys of Wales, in Westmorland

or in the Black Country, up to 20 or 30 years ago if there was insufficient scope for an adventurous young man in his locality he looked towards London, to the seas and beyond the seas. For the first time in modern history this country, in the past 10 years, has been driven back on to its own resources. There is nowhere left for us to expand in the world. There is nowhere left for us to populate. The result is that we have a considerable population which does not reflect the old patterns. In the old days the adventurous spirits would have gone away. Nowadays they stay in their own locality.
A great deal of talent and much adventurous spirit is left in Scotland, Wales and the regions of the United Kingdom. That is why people now want a greater say in the control of their own affairs than in the past. The evolution of our society and the change in our horizons has determined that that should take place. It is an evolutionary process which is unavoidable.
The second great consideration is that the evolvement of modern government has inevitably resulted in a consistent tendency towards centralised power. It is almost an irresistible force—this tendency towards centralised power.
The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) referred to the fact that there is a movement all over the country and in Europe which is partly expressed by the nationalist parties, partly by the Liberal Party and partly by the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. In different ways they are all expressing a discontent with the modern state of affairs which we have inherited from the past and which suited the conditions which governed us in the past.
Today it is inevitable that we have arrived at a situation in which some form of devolution is essential. I have firmly believed all my life that Wales should have a domestic parliament with legislative powers. Reference was made by the hon. Member for Argyll to Gladstone. In Gladstone's Newcastle programme there was not only a proposal for home rule for Ireland. I tell the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Lawson), who is not in his place, that home rule in that context did not


mean separation but a domestic parliament. It is to the eternal discredit of the other place that the Bill which was presented many times by Gladstone and his successors should have been obstructed and that Gladstone was frustrated in his intention to give Ireland a domestic parliament. We should have retained, if he had succeeded, what is now the Republic of Ireland within the United Kingdom.
The second measure which Gladstone intended to initiate was home rule for Scotland and the third was home rule for Wales. That would have followed the disestablishment of the Church in Wales. It was the frustration of the Irish measures under Gladstone, Asquith and Lloyd George that led to the present impasse, which has resulted in a part of Ireland breaking away from the United Kingdom and a great deal of trouble in Northern Ireland.
That is the background to the debate. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past. It is true that in Scotland and Wales the same kind of pressures do not exist which existed in Ireland in the nineteenth century or exist today. We do not have to create such unnecessary pressures in the present century if we have enlightened government.
I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). He knows that I have considerable respect for him, but he spent too much time attacking the Liberals and the nationalists and too little explaining what he would like to see implemented for Wales. Wales and Scotland are essentially different. From my many visits to Scotland and judging also by my many Scottish friends, I believe that the Scottish nationality is based more on ancient institutions than is the case in Wales.
Scotland has its own system of law. Wales had its own system of courts until 1830—the Courts of Session—which were abolished after a great speech by Edmund Burke. But apart from that, Wales has been singularly free of governmental institutions since the Tudor period. Emotionally, of course, it was a case of Wales taking over England when the Tudors moved to the throne, which had a great psychological effect in Wales. One thing which the Tudors did was to ensure that Wales was absorbed wholly into the

United Kingdom. Much of their policy towards the language is still much criticised in Wales today.
In Scotland, national identity has depended on the trappings of State at a much later stage of history than is the case in Wales, which enjoyed them, if at all, for only a short time. The Welsh identity is based on cultural and social considerations far more than on institutions, and there is a great deal of difference between the two countries.
I am convinced that in the modern world we have all the pressures in Europe to strive for greater unity. Although I was against going into the Common Market, I share the view that we should aim at a united Europe. But we want to create a different kind of Europe from that which was in danger of being created by the Common Market. There are undoubted pressures for a multinational unit of some kind in Europe, enjoying its own loyalty among the people it will contain. But, as a corollary, such a multinational unit will be impossible unless we have far greater protection for minorities within it. This is why it is so important to have devolution for Wales and Scotland.
Wales in this generation needs some institutions of government which the Welsh princes and the Tudors failed to give it and which we in our day must give it if Wales is to continue to hold dear its cultural and social values. I am, therefore, entirely in favour of a Parliament with legislative powers in Wales. I have always stood for this. Not every member of my party, at least in Wales, has always supported my view, but I have always held to it. I think it is the only course which makes sense.
I understand I have been criticised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones). I am sorry I missed his speech, but I was unavoidably absent. He said that I was in favour of a referendum on the Kilbrandon Report. I am. I think there should be adequate debate on the report in Wales and then a referendum.
I was in favour of a referendum on the Common Market because I believe that our membership was a great constitutional change. I think that the introduction of Kilbrandon would be a great constitutional change. I supported the Bill brought in by Mr. James Davidson, who


sat as Liberal Member for Aberdeenshire, West in the 1966–70 Parliament, when the Labour Party was in power last. The aim of the Bill was to have a referendum on a parliament for Scotland and a parliament for Wales. Who was against it? The Labour Party. On all major constitutional changes we should have a referendum. I have never changed my view on this. It is the only subject for which referenda are suitable in this country.
On the majority recommendation in the Kilbrandon Report that there should be a legislative assembly for Scotland, two of the members of the Commission who supported that recommendation dissented on the same recommendation for Wales. The reasons are given in paragraph 1151 of the report:
Wales, on the other hand, has no separate system of law, hardly any separate legislation and a geographically less well defined border. Two of us who favour legislative devolution for Scotland regard these and other differences between Scotland and Wales, and the strong desirability of retaining a Secretary of State for Wales, as sufficing to preclude its extension to Wales.
I regard those reasons, which are the only reasons in the report, as completely inadequate for distinguishing between Wales and Scotland. The fact that Wales is such a conscious community and so needs a focal point, the fact that so little time is given by the House to the discussion of Welsh affairs, the fact that so many problems which appear unimportant to the House but are important to the social and economic future of Wales, absolutely negative the reasons given by the two dissentients.
I regard the Kilbrandon Report as being of the greatest value in analysing the kind of devolution that we can obtain. I do not regard as important the counting of heads—seven in favour of one solution and five in favour of another. Clearly, many members of the commission had preconceived ideas and, as the report indicates, what they finally recommended depended to a large extent on where they came from geographically.
Looking to the future and to the youth of Wales, if we are to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom we need devolution to Wales and Scotland. It is as important in the minds of those who wish to preserve the unity of the United

Kingdom as it is in the minds of those who want, as Welsh Nationalists, far greater power for Wales. That is why I go wholeheartedly with the majority recommendation in the Kilbrandon Report in favour of legislative devolution for Wales.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), like his colleague the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and gave the impression that his speech was an all-out attack on Liberals and nationalists, thereby conveying that it was an anti-devolutionary speech. As is well known, my right hon. Friend has long held views on devolution to Wales. He has campaigned for more than 25 years for a greater voice for the Principality. I am sure that on reflection the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend will not wish to convey the impression that my right hon. Friend is striving to hold back the natural aspirations of the Welsh people.

Mr. Hooson: I have a greater respect for the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and his views on devolution than have most of the Labour Party. If the right hon. Gentleman conveyed a wrong impression to me, that is a matter he should have put right. I accept that throughout the years he has been in favour of greater devolution for Wales.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Chwarae Têg

Mr. Jones: It is kind of the Leader of the Liberal Party to use the Welsh language in this place.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Jones), the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) in my absence, for which I apologise. I certainly did not attack the Liberal Party. I analysed the position of the Liberal Party and the two nationalist parties in relation to the Kilbrandon Report, and I was subsequently drawn by hon. Members to speak at greater length than I intended.
I cannot accept that there is a great deal between us, because I said clearly that I believe in a directly-elected assembly, with substantial powers, and I indicated what I thought those powers should be, namely, executive powers. It is now for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, having paid close attention to this debate and having discussed the question in Wales, to come to a conclusion.

Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend has made his position absolutely clear, for the second time, for the benefit of Opposition Members.
This is one of the most important debates we have had in the House for many a year. I congratulate those who were lucky to secure an early place in the Ballot and who have enabled all those of us who are interested in the question of devolution to air our views and fears and to make our stand clear. The importance of this issue for the House of Commons cannot be underestimated. We cannot forget it or wish that it were not with us.
The Kilbrandon Report is a reality, and it analyses the whole problem in its correct perspective. In Wales—and in Scotland too, I am sure—there has been a great deal of misconception. People in both countries have been led up the garden path about how successive "London Governments" have mistreated them and not given them a fair share of the cake. Kilbrandon sweeps away that fallacy and misleading talk. No party comes to this debate with clean hands. No one has an untarnished record.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery talked of what was done towards the end of the last century. My attention has been drawn to a motion moved in 1895 by a Liberal Member from Birmingham, Mr. Dalziel, and seconded by that great Welshman, Lloyd George. It called for separate legislatures for Wales, Scotland and Ireland, to add to the effectiveness of Parliament and
to give more direct and fuller effect to the wishes and special needs of the different nations which comprise the United Kingdom.

Mr. Steel: Hear, hear.

Mr. Jones: The Liberal Whip says, "Hear, hear". That was in 1895, and Lloyd George left office in 1922. In his

speech tonight the Liberal Whip pleaded with the Secretary of State for Wales and whoever else will be responsible to hurry the whole procedure along, but at the same time his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery has just said that he wants a referendum. Perhaps they will sit down together one day and work out their own time scale for how long the referendum will take and when they expect the White Paper to be published.
For my part I go along with the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), whom I congratulate on a very good and forward-thinking speech, with most of which I entirely agree. The only problem for the hon. Gentleman is that some of his colleagues, when they read the watered-down version of his party's case which he gave us, may not be altogether happy to accept many of his proposals. But the hon. Gentleman showed the spirit in which we should now be looking at this question. That is the way we should now look at the whole problem of how to secure an elected assembly for Wales.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member is working hard to retain his majority of three.

Mr. Jones: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is in fine form for eleven o'clock at night, which is unusual. He refers to my majority of three. Certainly that was an experience which, if the hon. and learned Member went through it, would make a different man of him.
Consistently over the past six or seven years I have held firm views on the question of an elected assembly, no one will doubt that. Although there is now a Labour Government in power I will not shirk my responsibilities, along with my colleagues, of ensuring that we do not delay.
I agree with the hon. Member for Merioneth, although I am not sure that we can manage a White Paper in three months. His time scale for an elected assembly by 1st March 1976 is clearly something at which we should aim. It is perfectly possible. We should work together to see that it comes about. The Kilbrandon Report destroys a great many misconceptions. It destroys the misconception that Wales is badly off as a


result of being part of the United Kingdom. I shall not quote chapter and verse but I am willing to do so if forced.
Consistently the report comes back to one major theme: that the advantages of devolution for Wales and Scotland are not to be found in the economic sense. The report says clearly that there is no economic case. While it is feasible for Wales and Scotland to stand on their own feet, there would be a price to pay. Page 142 says:
Since separation would come about only if the Scottish and Welsh people as a whole wanted it, they would presumably be prepared if necessary to face a fall in standards.
It goes on to say that there would be falls in the standard of living:
There are some indications that they might both have substantial deficits, the Welsh deficit being proportionately greater than that of Scotland.
The hon. Member for Merioneth talked of the concept of sovereignty. His party is clearly committed to an independent and separate Welsh State. I have with me the evidence given by the National Party to the late Lord Crowther. Mr. Watkin Powell, who is now a judge, said that Wales should be a member of the Commonwealth and would preserve its links with the Commonwealth through the Crown. He envisaged close consultation with "our neighbours", and that Wales would join the United Nations, the ILO, the World Health Organisation, UNESCO and so on.
The National Party seems to be backtracking from those grand days in 1969 and 1970 when there were visions of a seat at the United Nations. It has reached a more realistic assessment. At page 53 of the minutes of evidence Mr. Powell said, quite rightly:
Whatever recommendations this Commission sees fit to make, ultimately the decision must rest with the Welsh people; and nothing can be foisted on the Welsh people. Neither would it be right if the will of the Welsh people, once expressed, were then to be blunted or slighted
With only 10 per cent. of the votes, they cannot foist anything at this stage.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) talked of an elected assembly with no economic powers. This is not what Plaid Cymru said to the Commission on the Constitution in its evidence:
A parliament with no control over the economic life of the country, over the trade or

monetary policy of a country, would be ineffective to reverse the economic disintegration of which Dr. Williams has already spoken.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I was referring in my speech to the concept of sovereignty as stressed in the opening sections of the Kilbrandon Report. I regarded that concept as being outmoded. As for having economic powers, I argued that I believed that an elected legislative assembly should have legislative powers over industrial development.

Mr. Jones: I do not want to get into an argument with the hon. Member for Merioneth. On industrial development, however, the Kilbrandon Report says clearly that even with a legislative assembly the powers and functions of the Department of Trade would still have to remain at Westminster along with other Departments of State. I argue that that is basic and essential. If we need a stronger and more effective regional policy in Britain, it cannot be devised in terms of Wales and Scotland in their own elected assemblies. We need stronger central control, if we talk of the direction of industry and greater financial inducements. That can be done only in the British context and in terms of regional development of Britain as a whole.
The case for devolution is not longer an economic argument. It is political and sociological. The fact that Wales is a nation is a political argument: how to bring decision making closer to the Welsh people is the crux of the issue. The economic argument has been blown sky high. Provided that we can clear the ground for the people of Wales so that they understand that economics is no longer the argument, we shall proceed at a faster rate. We have to put it to the Welsh people that it is no longer a question of economics but one of decision making and political will.
The problem which will confront us is that simply by bringing a parliament or an elected assembly to Cardiff we shall not solve the problems of the Welsh people. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) pointed out that people will be just as vociferous in their opposition to bad policies and bad decisions by an assembly in Cardiff as they have been to the Secretary of State for Wales or Parliament at Westminster.
I turn briefly to what I hope we all agree about and intend to give attention


to in the coming crucial months before we reach a final decision. The essential need is for the establishment of an elected assembly. At this stage, the long-drawn-out arguments about the functions and whether it should be legislative or executive are purely bogus. There is only a fine differential between legislative powers and executive powers. The Welsh Office is an executive body, but it has the ability to choose priorities—which road schemes to adopt, where to build a hospital, which housing scheme to approve and so on. The Welsh Office is a decison-making body, and if we give executive authority to an elected assembly in Wales we are indeed giving it powers—

Mr. D. E. Thomas: indicated dissent.

Mr. Jones: Apparently the hon. Member for Merioncth does not agree. I can only quote in aid what Kilbrandon says:
The essence of this form of devolution is that Parliament and the central government would be responsible for the framework of legislation…but would transfer to directly elected assemblies the responsibility for devising specific policies for the regions, for the execution of those policies…".
In other words, it will have the right within the executive framework of an elected assembly to choose the priorities.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will endeavour to put forward the clear lead to which the Labour Government are committed. I hope we shall not have either in Wales or in this House any argument about who really started the whole procedure, whose percentage points cause Kilbrandon to say this, and whose decline in the total vote caused something to go the other way. If we fall to that level of argument, no doubt a very strong case could be made for saying that there is no call for a legislative assembly. Indeed, others will say that there is no argument for an executive assembly.
The argument does not depend on which party in Wales has 10 per cent., 40 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the vote. There is clearly a consensus view here which surrounds the need for an elected assembly.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) referred to what the people want. I recommend hon. Members to read the research papers rather than the

Kilbrandon Report, because they show some remarkable opinions being held by people in Britain. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should try to find out what the people want. I suggest that it is difficult to assess what they want.
The opinion survey carried out for Kilbrandon showed that 30 per cent. of Welsh people did not realise that the Welsh Office existed. They were not aware that there was a Welsh Office. I am not sure what to make of that, but it is there.
Another question posed to the people in the questionnaire concerned the functions of the Welsh Office. Clearly many had no idea of its functions. Only 17 per cent. of the people of Wales realised that we had any control over education. Only 9 per cent. realised that the Welsh Office was responsible for housing. Only 14 per cent. realised that the Welsh Office was responsible for roads. I could go on. [Interruption.] The Leader of the Liberal Party is providing us with a great deal of entertainment tonight, for which we are grateful.
I turn now to the kind of elected assembly that the people of Wales expect. According to page 87 of Research Paper No. 7, when asked what the composition of this elected assembly should be 48 per cent. of the people thought that it should be composed of appointed experts rather than elected members. Therefore, I hope that we shall not go down the slippery slope of trying to find out what the people want, as suggested by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. It must be a political decision as to what is best for the Principality.
There is a consensus view surrounding the need for an elected assembly. Let us not at this late stage, when we could have a White Paper in six or nine months, deny ourselves the opportunity of establishing an elected body in Wales with specific powers.
I could outline what I should prefer in such an elected assembly. We require a body with the necessary moral authority which will command respect and demand more functions as it grows in experience and stature. That should be our common aim. That is the moderate way we should go. If we fail to unite in a mood of good will, we will let down very badly the people of both Wales and Scotland.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Paul Tyler: It falls to me, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to sum up and draw together some of the points that have been made, at least on this side of the House. I do so conscious that the Scottish, Welsh and, indeed, English accents that we have heard should have added to them a Cornish accent, because, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), I am a Celt, but one of those special Celts who come from the other side of the Tamar.
I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Jones). I understand that he and I share the celebrity of having very small majorities. However, I should point out that mine is three times greater than his. While at this time of night I am sure hon. Members will be glad to hear that I do not intend to exercise my privilege to speak at three times the length that he did, I think it gives me the right at least to make some points of a general nature rather than specifically articulating the national causes about which we have heard so much today.
The Kilbrandon Report, either in its majority recommendations or in its minority report, is not primarily concerned with such political jargon as "federalism" or "separation". Hon. Gentleman on the Government side who have used those words in a slipshod way should remember that its analysis of Britain's problems is not put in such terms as those.
The two words that are used most often in the report in the analysis of remedies for our ills are "decentralisation" and "democracy". That is what the report is really about. These words can be applied to every part of the British Isles. Therefore, it is important in drawing together the threads of the debate not to get ourselves enmeshed in a discussion of the particular characteristics of Scotland and Wales, much as I recognise that they are particular and need special recognition.
All the members of the Royal Commission recognised that there was a disease. All of them agreed on the nature of the disease. Their diagnoses were very close and similar. If anyone doubts what I say I invite him to read Chapter 9, the summary of which makes it clear that the

whole of the commission was convinced that there was a problem and that it needed urgent action.
The members of the commission went a step further. There was general agreement that there had to be a move in a particular direction towards greater decentralisation. The difference came in the emphasis on the extent of the treatment and the time scale for it. Here I must confess that I find the memorandum of dissent much more rational and practical in its attitude to the problems of the time scale.
We must all recognise that a constitution, like an omelette, cannot be unscrambled, and therefore the importance of the whole discussion of our time scale is such that in making any changes to our constitution we must ensure that we move step by step. It may be—I hope this will be the case—that steps will be taken faster and further for particular parts of the United Kingdom, but I hope too that it will still be possible to enable those other parts of the United Kingdom which may want to come along in due course to feel that they have that opportunity and that their progress is no prejudiced.
We had for a certain period in this country a philosophical fad that was promoted by a particular group of economists. It was that there were economies in size. That philosophy went untested for many years, but it has now come to grief, and it has done so in the context of the energy crisis.
Some hon. Members may have read a notable book, which is a collection of essays, by Dr. Schumacher entitled "Small is Beautiful". It is interesting to note in passing that Dr. Schumacher was for many years economic adviser to the National Coal Board. But I understand that his advice was rarely taken, hence perhaps the troubles that that industry has had since his departure.
In his book Dr. Schumacher, who is an economist, made a number of simple points about the size of organisations and the difficulty that people find in relating to an organisation that is beyond their immediate comprehension. When an organisation—be it a firm, a unit of local government or a country—ceases to have a personal relationship with an individual and he ceases to feel a personal identity


with that organisation, there are immediate human and social problems. This is true with the multinational companies. This is true with the ever-increasing size of units of local government, and it is true of many other organisations.
Dr. Schumacher's thesis has been proved all too right in recent months by the energy crisis. The concept of economy of size depended all too often on cheap personal mobility. This is basically why we were pushed into accepting larger and larger units of local government and why many companies grew larger. The energy crisis came too late to affect the deliberations of the Royal Commission, but it would have increased the tendency for its members to react against remote, impersonal government. In retrospect many hon. Members, not just on this bench, may feel that the Local Government Act 1972 overestimated the advantages of centralisation. We will live to regret it, not least because of the enormous change in the cost of personal mobility.
I find it difficult to take seriously some of the criticisms of centralisation that we have heard tonight, most notably from the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). For someone who has been at the very centre of the centralisation process in several Governments now to criticise that process is a remarkable conversion. We should welcome any convert, but it is important to recognise that the Kilbrandon Report is a damning indictment of centralisation over the last 25 to 30 years.
The other key word in the report is "democracy". Quite rightly, the summaries of both minority and majority reports point to the deadening effect of centralisation on the political, commercial and cultural life of the regions. But it also points to the imposition by the centre of a uniformity which is inconsistent with the retention of a distinctive regional character.
For both these analyses of the situation one of the worst culprits has been the nationalised industries and the ad hoc bodies set up in recent years, taking away from the democratic institutions control of many features of our local life. I speak as an ex-member of a police authority, on which I had no direct

democratic responsibility. The same is true of the health authorities, the water authorities and the nationalised services. The report shows all these bodies to be inadequate substitutes for genuine democratic control by people over the services which affect their lives.
The central problem now is, how far and how fast? What, for whom, and when? The political pressures for devolution are uneven. Scotland and Wales have much stronger feelings and want to go much further, but other areas feel strongly too. The attitude survey in Research Paper 7 showed that Yorkshire and the far South-West have much stronger views about the remoteness of Whitehall and Westminster than parts which are physically closer to the centre of power. This is obvious. Nevertheless it is easily forgotten if we concentrate entirely on the case of the national parts of the United Kingdom.
But those nations clearly must be the pioneers in our new venture in decentralisation. The important point is that when we have legislation for their progress it must not be allowed to hold back considerable advances for the whole United Kingdom. It would not be fair, I believe, to Yorkshire, to Cornwall or to any other part of the United Kingdom if Scotland and Wales alone were allowed to have constitutions to match the necessities of the latter half of the twentieth century and we were left with the dregs, the nineteenth-century remains.
We are all gradualists now. I am sure that all hon. Members want to proceed gradually, but if gradualism is to be as slow as some Labour Members would encourage us to believe there will come a time when there will be resentment and anger in many different parts of the United Kingdom. The consumers of government are the elector; and, however efficient in business and administrative terms an organisation may be, if the consumers do not see the products of that organisation as being geared to their needs and wishes, no one can say that that is efficient. Administrative efficiency is far less important than effective democracy.
We in Cornwall feel remote. We feel alienated from the centre of power. However administratively efficient Whitehall may be in dealing with our problems—


with the latest example of the rate support grant, I fear that no one in Cornwall is likely to think that; but even if Whitehall were administratively efficient there would still be resentment that the remoteness of central government made it difficult for us to influence what was going on.
Kilbrandon—all the members of the commission, and all the parts of the report—adds up to a damning indictment of the centralising tendencies of all Governments since the last war. I believe that now is the time for all parts of the country to be given new hope that this trend is to be reversed.

11.27 p.m.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Robert Sheldon): This debate has been unusual and, in one respect, unique. I refer, of course, to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with his grave news. Also, it has been most unusual because of four maiden speeches, to which I wish to pay my due tribute.
The hon. Members for Argyle (Mr. MacCormick), Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. B. Henderson), Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. D. Henderson) and the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) made their contributions to the debate. I cannot recollect there being as many maiden speeches in the debate on a Consolidated Fund Bill in recent years. The clarity and sincerity those hon. Members brought to the debate and their strong sense of national and regional identity were echoed elsewhere in the House and contributed to a very valuable and well-thought-out debate. I am sure that there would have been further contributions if it had not been for the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. G. Jones), my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. A. Jones), who also made very valuable and carefully considered contributions.

Mr. Steel: While appreciating the hon. Gentleman's presence here tonight, may I ask whether he does not agree that another unusual factor is the total absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland throughout the debate?

Mr. Sheldon: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman made that criticism because, as he may have observed, two of my hon. Friends with responsibilities for Scotland and two of my hon. Friends with responsibilities for Wales have sat patiently through the debate for the best part of five and a half hours. I commend their diligence.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Will my hon. Friend point out to hon. Members on the Opposition benches that we have achieved a tremendous consensus in this debate? I appealed to hon. Members not to talk in terms of percentage points and silly arguments of that kind. Will my hon. Friend ask the Liberal Whip to refrain from talking such rubbish?

Mr. Thorpe: May I totally withdraw my hon. Friend's remarks, on his behalf? We have been delighted to have the Secretary of State for Wales here. He has diligently attended the debate. I accept the view of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. G. Jones) that we want the acceptance of Kilbrandon. It is for that reason that we accept the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Sheldon: I would point out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was well represented by other Ministers having responsibilities in this sector. It is a pity that, having had what I consider to be a most valuable debate, we should find ourselves getting bogged down with what are not very important points at this late stage.
The importance of this debate has been that I, like others, have found it very instructive to listen to what has been, in effect, the first extensive debate that this House has been able to have on the Kilbrandon Report. The debate has shown how urgently hon. Members—especially those from Scotland and Wales—have regarded this subject. At this stage I should make it plain that this sense of urgency is fully shared by the Government. At the same time there have emerged from the debate some very good reasons why it would be quite irresponsible of the Government, after only a few days in office, to go headlong into specific constitutional commitments which could have significant and long-term implications for all our people.
To a considerable extent the position of the Government is quite clear from what


has been said in the Queen's Speech and the answers given to hon. Members earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other members of the Government. At this stage I should say once again where we stand on this matter.
First, it was the last Labour administration which first recognised, in 1968, that alienation from government was a problem that called for serious investigation. Coupled with this sense of alienation were strong feelings of national sentiment in Scotland and Wales, often associated with resentment at the amount of government coming from London.
There was also the feeling on the part of many people in other parts of the United Kingdom that the control of government was actually slipping out of the hands of people in those other parts and that, in effect, government was being carried out without their proper participation. It was against that background that the Government set up the Royal Commission on the Constitution.
In case anybody thinks that this was simply a political gimmick, it ought to be stated that there were two factors that led us to that view. In the first place, it was quite clear to us, as it must have been to anyone with any appreciation of life in Scotland and Wales, that the feelings of national sentiment in those two countries were not simply going to go away. There never was any possibility, let alone, I submit, any wish, that this would happen.
The distinctiveness of Scotland and Wales had already been recognised in governmental terms by the setting up of the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office, with substantial powers, under their Secretaries of State, and some kind of further development was bound to remain an active question, quite apart from any electoral successes which might be enjoyed by the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties.
As the Kilbrandon Report says, in relation to Scotland, there are many Scots who have no wish to break the union with England but who are nevertheless proud of Scotland and want to see their own particular light quite rightly shining rather more brightly in the world. That is a perfectly natural and honourable feeling, which is also reflected in Wales,

and it has been a permanent feature of our United Kingdom society.
It was plain to us when the Government first set up the Royal Commission on the Constitution that we were carrying these matters forward in a way that was bound to stimulate further debate, whatever the commission might recommend. It was always clear that any argument could never, and would never, end there.
We did not have in mind, as many people have implied, that the commission would be a convenient way of shelving the problem over a long period. It is true that in the event the commission sat for four years. It is gratifying to note, from the references made to the report during the debate, how widely it has been read. However, it is quite clear from the most cursory reading of the report and the memorandum of dissent that the length of time taken by the commission was due entirely to the complexities of the matters which it was required to consider. In the end the report turned out to be substantial, scrupulously fair, detailed and closely argued, for which we must all be grateful.
The size of the report—including, as it does, little material which could be discarded without some loss—is also an indication of the size of the problem before us; so too is the fact that the report is accompanied by a well-argued memorandum of dissent, a full volume in itself. This, although it approaches the question from an entirely different point of view, was intended—as its principal author, Lord Crowther-Hunt, has pointed out—to put forward additional models which could be tested for practicability and acceptability, along with those described in the main report.
I reaffirm that it is our intention to move quickly on the report. It has been stated in the Gracious Speech that we intend to initiate discussions in Scotland and Wales and to bring forward proposals. We have, as a matter of urgency, to decide on the scope and nature of the discussions. When that has been settled, discussions will be put in hand at the earliest possible time and will be conducted with all possible speed.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated clearly that we intended to publish a White Paper on this subject,


and subsequently a Bill will be brought before the House. We have appointed Lord Crowther-Hunt as constitutional adviser to the Government to give an impetus to this and all the other work that has to be done and to take a leading part in it. This appointment demonstrates how seriously the Government take the Kilbrandon Report and how anxious we are that there should be no avoidable delay.
I trust, however, that hon. Members will recognise that, in view of the complicated nature of the problems involved, it is not possible for me at this stage to set out a detailed timetable to cover all the various stages of the operation which we now have to go through. This is not a subject on which the Government can reasonably be expected to reach conclusions within a week or two of taking office. Those who argue that a decision should be possible immediately are, in my opinion, misjudging the situation. There has been a realistic mood about this which has informed much of the debate.
A number of people would like to use Kilbrandon quickly, without proper consideration, as a stepping stone to other things—for example, separation or federalism, both of which Kilbrandon rejects. Others, in good faith, take the view that, since the commission worked on these problems for more than four years and produced a thorough report, the Government should now be in a position to make up their minds on the basis of the report.
Helpful though it is, however, the commission does not come out with one definite recommendation. Both majority and minority reports put forward a number of alternative recommendations. The commission rightly recognised that the ultimate decision was political. It therefore saw its own role as one of analysis and assessment. It examined a number of alternatives and the advantages and disadvantages of each. It left, as it had to, the final choice to be made by the people and the representatives they have elected to this House.
All the suggested models of devolution now require to be examined and tested for practicability and acceptability. That is not a simple task because it involves a number of questions of great com-

plexity, and the fact that the commission was divided as to what would be the preferable solution shows that the issues involved are not as easy as perhaps might have been thought. The commission stressed the importance of the views of the people in their choice of their own system of government. It stated the vital importance of public debate and the formulation of a more clearly defined public opinion and that only when this had been done would it be right for the decision to be taken.
At present public opinion, even in Scotland and Wales is not clearly established. Although there is obviously a good deal of impetus towards devolution, the implications of the various alternatives are not fully understood—how could they be at this stage?—and the extent of the support for any of these alternatives can only be guessed at.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Louis Harris poll, published in the Scottish Daily Express in October 1973, which set out certain attitudes which might be prevalent within Scotland?

Mr. Sheldon: We have just gone through a General Election in which the Louis Harris poll singularly failed to provide an indication of the result, so I would not regard it as an ideal test on which to make an important decision of this kind. I accept that it is an indication, but there are other indications as well, and the consultations will make attitudes more clearly ascertainable by the Government. We have to examine most carefully the various constitutional options which were identified in Kilbrandon, and a great deal of the work is already in hand.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: While accepting that Scotland and Wales must have priority in the time scale, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to the intended consultations in the provinces of England?

Mr. Sheldon: I shall come to that point.
As I have said, a great deal of the work of consultation is already in hand, and one of the important aspects is to discover what the people of our country really think about this issue. This is why


consultations are necessary with the appropriate organisations in Scotland and Wales, including, if they are willing to accept the Prime Minister's invitation, the political parties. Although we have not yet settled the precise form of the consultations, the important aspect is that we do not see them re-doing the work of Kilbrandon. We see them as focusing on the specific problems that have already been raised by the various models of devolution which are presented in the report. That should provide a basis for the preparation of a White Paper and a Bill. Kilbrandon does not provide the answer but it provides a range of choices. It should enable us to make the consultation process much more rapid than would have been the case without the production of the report.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) has said that England represents as much a part of the Kilbrandon Report as Scotland and Wales. Although he will have seen that the Queen's Speech refers only to discussions in Scotland and Wales, he should not take that omission as an indication that the Government wish to give no consideration to England. We have taken the view that the issues involved happen at present to be far more pressing in Scotland and in Wales and that at this busy time England can be given a lower priority.
In our examination of the Kilbrandon proposals we shall be looking at the report as a whole, including the proposals for England. Whatever action is found to be appropriate for England will be taken in due course. Although, for the reasons I have given, I am not yet in a position to commit the Government to a particular course of action or at this early stage of our investigations even to suggest a firm timetable, our minds are open to all the solutions which are put forward in Kilbrandon and in the memorandum of dissent. We shall study them and present our conclusions as quickly as the obvious complications of the subject allow.
We are not shelving the subject or avoiding it. We are not trying to got rid of it. It is our belief that the proper way to deal with the matter is to get on with it. We intend to push forward to a satisfying conclusion.

Orders of the Day — NORTH SEA ENERGY

11.48 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: It might be as well to get on the record the fact that we should have another look at the way in which we conduct the Consolidated Fund Bill. The last debate began at just after six o'clock. That means that it has continued for virtually six hours. It was concerned with a subject of major importance, but I think that our proceedings should be arranged in such a way that Members who take part in the ballot and are badly drawn in it might have a better chance of participating and having their say on whatever subject they wish to discuss. I suppose that that is a matter for the Procedure Committee. I hope that the committee will consider the desirability of limiting a debate to a maximum of two or three hours.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-on-Tweed): The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) might consider having a word with his Whips about the possibility of allocating more Supply Days to minority parties. That means could be used and might ease the hon. Gentleman's problem.

Mr. Hamilton: It might well be that the minority parties would fare a lot worse than today. Minorities are to be protected, but majorities also have rights. Perhaps I may describe them as larger minorities. Until now, and certainly since the election, the House has given protection to the smaller minorities. It is time that the larger parties had a greater say in the running of debates than they have had hitherto.
I come immediately to the subject of this debate, which is North Sea oil. Next week we shall have the Budget, in which one of the most critical problems that will have to be dealt with is the scandalous blunder which has been perpetrated in the handling of North Sea energy resources by both Labour and Conservative Governments. I think that the Conservative Government were more culpable than the Labour Government, because it was under the Conservative régime that we had a glimpse of the obvious wealth of resources under the North Sea waiting to be developed.
The guidelines on future policy were laid down devastatingly by the Public Accounts Committee Report of 1972, which made damning disclosures about Government ineptitude in a purely nonpartisan and objective way. But even since that report was produced at least two new factors have emerged which make imperative the introduction of radical new attitudes and policies.
The first new factor is the quadrupling of world oil prices within the past four months. It is easy to be wise after the event, but I suppose that we should have foreseen that. It is possible that there will be an equal increase in the foreseeable future.
Secondly, there has been increasing knowledge about the extent and value of the oil finds in the North Sea—much of it, as well as the Celtic Sea, not yet even explored. In a few months the value of the known commercial reserves has increased sixfold. Various estimates are now made, but anyone who engages in hard figures in this game is being absurd. We do not know what the value of the finds is. It depends entirely on existing prices, and they can be out of date before I sit down.
It was estimated by the Observer on, I think, 10th February this year, that the resources are worth about £130,000 million at existing prices. The Observer also stated that by 1980 production could be up to 150 million tons a year.
Professor Balogh said in his recent article in the Banker that by 1980 it could be up to 150 million tons a year. American bankers estimate that production could be over 200 million tons a year. Various estimates are given. Professor Odell, quoted by Professor Balogh, believes that production could be 300 million tons a year, with the British sector delivering two-thirds of that. We are talking in figures beyond the comprehension of the British people.
Let us assume a minimum United Kingdom figure of 150 million tons a year, or over 1,000 million barrels. Even at 10 dollars a barrel, the annual pre-tax profits would be over £4,000 million and by 1980 the price is almost certain to be at least 50 per cent. higher. It has already been higher than that in some of the auctions. These figures are far higher than the latest figure for the gross profits made by

the whole of United Kingdom manufacturing industry as of now. That is the scale of the problem with which we are trying to grapple.
The scandal is not irreversible, because not a barrel of oil has yet been delivered. At present, more than half of those profits could go untaxed to foreign interests. As early as mid-1970 the oil experts were predicting that the North Sea could provide up to two-thirds of the whole of Europe's requirements, and since then enormous further finds have been made.
I referred on a previous occasion to the Edinburgh Mafia, but now the international Mafia has moved in for the killings, from the House of Fraser to Courtaulds—concerns that have no relationship to oil—Thomson Associated Newspapers, and the inevitable stockbrokers, land speculators and merchant bankers. They are all in it, and I hope that the Government—who are now in the process of formulating their policies—will prevent these people from grabbing what they can while they can and then clearing out. By the end of 1971 the potential robbery and plundering of the North Sea was terrifying in its magnitude, matched in size only by the crass ignorance of the Government of what was going on under their noses. But the situation is not irreversible, and the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee still await implementation.
Certain minimum steps are required to be taken by the Government. Some have been spelt out, partly by the Public Accounts Committee and partly by Lord Balogh. Despite what the Opposition may say about Lord Balogh, he knows his onions about North Sea oil, and I do not think that anything he has proposed will frighten off the oil companies. Let not the Tory Party say, "You are too severe; you will frighten them off." We shall not be able to drive them out. They will settle for 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. on their capital; there is no question of their pulling out.
First, there is a case for renegotiation of the existing licence conditions. We have the benefit of hindsight and can see how ridiculously over-generous were successive Governments in giving away the licences at the beginning.
Secondly, I agree with Mr. Dick Douglas, the former Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire, who


sat on the Public Accounts Committee and strongly recommended a barrelage tax on a sliding scale, perhaps as recommended by Lord Balogh in the Banker article. We on the Government side favour increased public participation at least comparable to that exercised by Norway.
We must have a reform of the royalty system, varying with the size of the field, and, going back to the Labour Party policy of six or seven years ago when we recommended the establishment of a national hydrocarbon corporation, a monopoly State buyer and seller which would fix the price at which the oil was bought and sold. The manifesto on which the Labour Party fought the election, referring to the increased oil prices in the Arab countries, said—
the new situation has greatly strengthened Labour's intention to ensure not only that the North Sea and Celtic Sea oil and gas resources are in full public ownership, but that the operation of getting and distributing them is under full Government control and majority participation. We cannot accept that the allocation of available world output should continue to be made by multi-national oil companies and not by Governments. We will not permit Britain's own resources to be parcelled out in this, way. It is public ownership and control that will enable the British people, through its Government, to fix the pace of exploitation of our oil, and the use to which it is put, so as to secure the maximum public advantage from our own resources.
The manifesto went on to refer to the possibility of setting up an international energy commission to establish an international allocation of available oil resources. I shall return to that in a moment.
When he spoke last Tuesday, the Prime Minister reminded us that these resources are already a publicly-owned asset, under the Continental Shelf Act. The machinery to ensure its proper use has not yet been devised. The Government admit that frankly. Much the same consideration applies to this matter as applies to Kilbrandon. Any Government would be most ill advised to make decisions of this magnitude on the spot. Instant government does not apply either to Kilbrandon or to North Sea oil. I could not blame the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), when concluding for the Opposition in the energy debate last week, for making some play of the apparent contracliction between one policy and another

expressed from this side. But there is no need to apologise for saying that it is an extremely difficult problem to tackle. One does not want to drive the oil companies away. On the other hand, one does not want them to be the masters of our fate. They must be our servants, not our masters.
All we are entitled to expect from the Minister tonight, I think, is a progress report. Two days ago, on 18th March, he made a speech to a conference in Newcastle in which he said, in so many words, that the Government were planning a partnership with the oil companies to obtain the maximum benefit for the British people. That can be criticised, of course, as saying no more than that we are not going in for full-blown public ownership, or nationalisation. I do not give a damn how the cash is obtained—whether through 51 per cent. control, a public corporation, a barrellage tax, or whatever it may be—so long as we ensure that the revenues from North Sea oil come back to the people. The asset belongs to us and to no one else. The oil companies' expertise in exploring, discovering and extracting must be used for the public good.
My hon. Friend went on to say that several schemes are being considered, and that legislation will be forthcoming in the next 12–18 months. Tonight, I hope that he will be able to answer one or two specific questions. He recognises the importance of the IMEG Report, which was highly critical of what had gone on up to 1972, when the report was made. Do the Government intend to implement as swiftly as possible all the recommendations in that report? If not, which are they throwing overboard, and why?
For instance, are we to have art extension of further education and training facilities? It is absurd that we should be talking about thousands of millions of pounds of potential revenue, yet for education and training facilities we speak in terms of hundreds or thousands at the most. We should be thinking in terms of millions of pounds, and we should be demanding that kind of money from the oil companies.
I hope that we shall hear from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget next week that we hope to get revenue from the oil companies' profits, prospective and present,


and use a lot of that for extending these facilities, for building up the Petroleum Supply Industry Board which was recommended by the IMEG Report, for an information service to offshore operators and contractors, for credit facilities for covering the sales of equipment and services to offshore operators and contractors, and financial support for research and development projects.
Different types of production platform are being put forward for offshore moorings, or for pipelines. There are various techniques for deeper water exploration. All these require enormous sums of money. I was glad to see the IMEG report recommending a study of the infrastructure. There is no doubt that oil facilities onshore will affect the environment. No one can prevent this.
I do not believe that the industry can be sustained without a massive switch of transport from road to rail. There will have to be a big investment in the railways in the Highlands and wherever there is an oil potential. There is a reference in the IMEG report to the problems created in Scotland. It happens that oil has been found where the environment is perhaps more important than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It is not easy to marry the need to get the oil for national purposes with the need to protect a way of life that is unique. To make sure that one situation does not destroy the other is an exciting and challenging task, which we cannot shirk or pretend that it will go away.
We must ensure that the minimum long-term damage is done to traditional values and ways of life. It is not good enough to say that we should slow down development. The tap cannot be turned off as easily as the Scottish National Party seems to suggest. How would that party slow it down and to whose advantage would that be? I appreciate that in the nature of things this is an extremely valuable asset, limited in its duration. We do not know how long an extractive industry will last. It is important to treat it as a precious asset, not one to be squandered by selling it below the world price or by getting people to believe that it can be shovelled out to provide massively increased pensions.
The SNP campaign during the election appalled me by its appeal to the base

material instincts of people. It had a leaflet that was almost pornographic. It spoke of £25-a-week pensions, no income tax, and no rates. One of the party's candidates actually went around on a camel in one of the constituencies.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: It was a Conservative candidate in Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire who had occasion to use a camel in the course of the campaign. Certainly none of our candidates was so minded.

Mr. Hamilton: No, perhaps they could not afford it. That was the kind of campaign conducted. Certainly it was not a Labour candidate who used a camel.
It is quite wrong to appeal to people's nationalistic greed by saying that because the oil happens to have been found round a particular part of the coast north of an arbitrary line drawn between Carlisle and Berwick, all the benefit should go to people who happen to live north of that line and nothing should go south. I find that kind of campaign quite appalling.
I go further. These ought to be treated as international resources. We are not at that stage yet. We are a long way from world government. But that is how I would like to see them treated. At the moment we have divided the North Sea by international agreement, and we have divided the resources by international agreement. We have to see to it that they are used for the benefit of all our people.
There are people all over the United Kingdom who are as poor as and sometimes poorer than the poorest in Scotland. As an international Socialist, I do not think in these narrow nationalistic terms, and as an Englishman representing a Scottish constituency for 24 years, I think that I can say that.
My nationality has never been questioned, although my birth sometimes has. The people of Fife always ask me what I stand for and what principles I stand for, not where I was born and what nationality I am. This problem should be approached in a similar way.
Whatever Government machinery is devised or evolved, the minerals round our shores and beneath our land belong to us all, and we have to see to it that the oil companies are answerable and


accountable to us. They must be our agents and not our masters. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to seek ways and means of keeping this House continuously informed. I should like some machinery devised—it may be a permanent all-party Select Committee of this House having a continuous oversight of what is going on, or the Government might see fit to produce monthly reports on the progress of consultation. They must demand from the oil companies a full disclosure of their costings and of their accounts. Let us have full open disclosure by them. For far too long we have worked in the dark. The oil companies are skilled at pulling the wool over the eyes of successive Governments. That must no longer pertain. I hope that we shall have some undertakings along these lines.
I hope, too, that my hon. Friend will explain precisely what is to be the role of Lord Balogh in these proceedings and what is the relationship between my hon. Friend himself, Lord Balogh and the Minister for Energy. I have a great admiration for the noble Lord. I think that he knows what he is about, and the oil companies have a right to fear and respect him. I hope that he will be used to the maximum. But I should like to know the relative importance of Lord Balogh, of the Minister for Energy and of my hon. Friend.
It will be a very difficult exercise and a very exciting challenge. I hope that this minority Government will exist long enough to get the legislation on the statute book which the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in his last Budget. Nothing has happened since, except a retreat, if anything, from that promise. Apart from that, I hope that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer will take it upon himself to lay down the line to the oil companies that we are not having any more of the kind of financial jiggery-pokery for which the oil companies have been well known over many years. They have always known how to cook the books and how to evade taxation. This must be stopped. We must ensure that the vast resources at our disposal are used for the benefit of all our people and that in the process the environment is disturbed to the minimum extent.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to suspend the sitting till half-past Twelve.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be pleased if you would give us some guidance as to why the House was suspended for approximately a quarter of an hour.

Mr. Speaker: There are certain physical limitations on the occupant of the Chair.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I start by congratulating the Under-Secretary of State on his appointment. No doubt the tea break will end soon and he will return. However, I put my congratulations on the record before he arrives.
I am glad that the Government have apparently dropped their somewhat peculiar proposals for nationalising the oil industry and are prepared to fall back on imposing a levy on oil or obtaining public participation in the profits from oil in some other way. I think that such profits must be shared between the regions concerned, Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Indeed, some of the profits might well be used to help underdeveloped countries.
Briefly, the reason for saying that the regions most directly affected by oil are entitled to a reasonable share of the proceeds is that it is their economy which will be temporarily disrupted, for better or for worse, and which will have to be put back; and these are regions which have been told for generation after generation that they need to be subsidised by the rest of Britain. It would be psychologically bad if they were not to have a reasonable share of the profits accruing from oil discovered in the seas adjacent to them.
I want to raise certain specific matters concerned with oil development in Scotland, particularly in Shetland and Orkney. I do not expect the Under-Secretary to be able to reply to these points in detail tonight, but they are substantive and concrete points of some urgency.
First, is it too late to have a proper survey of Scotland carried out to suggest


where oil-related development of various kinds can or should take place and where it would be unsuitable? Some time ago a very unsatisfactory document was produced in the Scottish Office. It was incomplete, tentative and in many other respects unsatisfactory. It is a great drawback when trying to decide on particular developments if there is no general survey taking in the whole of the Scottish coastline.
Secondly, I hope that at some point the new Under-Secretary will say what his view is of the committee which was set up within the Scottish Office to advise upon the impact of oil. I attach great importance to impartial advice which will enable the Government, the House and local authorities to make up their minds about what are and what are not suitable oil-regulated developments.
This brings me to the planning procedures, because if we had a survey and if we had authoritative and impartial advice I think we should find it much easier to deal with these very difficult matters such as whether development should take place at Drumbuie. I believe that it is essential to have a careful investigation taking into account the public interest in all its forms—economic, social and environmental. At present the procedures are far too lengthy, they are far too expensive and they are uncertain.
The Under-Secretary was a member of the Committee which considered the Zetland County Council Bill and he will be very much aware of the time consumed, of the expense of sitting for nearly three weeks in Edinburgh, and at the end of it having a Bill which had to be considerably altered in this House. I do not think this is satisfactory and I hope that the Government will give very urgent consideration to the whole question of planning. When the Government do that, I trust that they will look at the question of planning in the sea. I have raised this matter repeatedly. I am informed that the planning Acts do not run below either the high water mark or the low water mark and that it is extremely doubtful whether we have any proper control over the routing of pipelines in the sea or over the installations in the sea. Certainly these lines and parts of other installations, and pollution of various sorts, can have serious effects on fishing grounds. There is great anxiety among fishermen in the

north of Scotland, where these pipelines and related works concerned with oil could damage still further the only areas in which we can trawl or seine net and which have already been gravely affected by wrecks, refuse dumped from ships and other obstructions on the sea bottom.
Would it not be possible to set up an insurance fund from which the fishermen who have lost gear or whose livelihood have been damaged by pollution—the livelihoods of shell fishermen may suffer very much from pollution—could be compensated?
I come now to what, to my constituency, is the most urgent and serious matter—the inadequacy of preparations made for the impact of oil. It is incredible to go to areas like Sullom and see the total lack of preparations. We are told that it is not a question of two years or three years; it is a question of mere months before certain parts of my constituency in this part of the north of Scotland become associated with the largest oil find for many years in any part of the world. The roads in Shetland are quite inadequate to bear heavy traffic. To put them into a condition to do so will be extremely expensive. They are laid on peat, they are very narrow and they have not the foundations to bear the strain.
Again, in the case of Brae the housing is inadequate. It is inadequate for the Shetlanders, and far more so for newcomers. There is a grave shortage. The school is totally inadequate, housed in temporary buildings which do not meet the needs of the existing Shetland children. There are no amenities fit for the present population. Yet within months, we are told, this district may have to take in thousands of newcomers, and the preparations are not there.
We cannot expect the local authority, with a population of 17,000, to undertake this type of expansion. It demands action by the Government. I was astonished at the complacency and inertia of the previous administration in the face of the impact of oil which will be upon us in a matter of months.
In the case of Flotta, which is the terminal for the oil pipelines, as far as I am aware there is no promise of a doctor. At the moment there is not even a nurse. In Shetland no adequate steps have been taken to strengthen the police services, the social services, the education services


or the medical services. Whenever I asked the previous administration about it, their answer was "We are watching the situation very carefully". Time marches on. No doubt the periscope of the former Secretary of State was fixed on something or other, but what it was I do not know. It is no longer a question of watching. If we are to put the roads in Shetland in order it must be done next month, because it is no good waiting for winter. By 1975 there will be some heavy traffic passing over the roads.
I also make a point about the Zetland County Council Bill. We are told that the Government intend to nationalise land for development. As the Minister is aware, the Zetland Bill enables the local authority to exercise compulsory purchase powers. I trust that there will be some examination of interaction of these measures.
Already it seems that the proposed legislation on crofting and on Shetland, and the proposals for compulsory purchase, have not been correlated in the they should have been. I suspect also that the price at which crofting land can be acquired has been decided without any attention to the immense increase in land prices in certain crofting areas due to the discovery of oil.
I ask the Government to look at the impact of phase 3 or, if that is now a dirty phrase, whatever will be taking its place. It is absurd to expect that if there is a major boom on small islands 150 miles from Aberdeen the economy of those islands can continue as it has done in the past. Already public services in Shetland are being denuded of essential services which will be responsible for the building of roads and houses.
The attitude of the previous Government was that phase 3—that sacred book handed down, apparently, by the prophet —could not be breached in any way. It seemed to be suggested that if there was shortage of labour in Shetland busloads of workers could be sent from Glasgow. But buses cannot cross the sea; and it is not possible to house the type of labour required.
Unless we are careful, the indigenous industries of Shetland—such as fishing, fish processing, and knitwear—as well as the public services will be totally denuded of labour. The oil boom and oil-related

industries will also suffer because it will not be possible to get the labour which is needed to set up the infrastructure in the way it should be set up.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Milian): The right hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that I had an informal meeting with the county convener for Shetland yesterday when he was in London for other reasons. I discussed with him, on a preliminary basis, some of the points which the right hon. Gentleman has raised. I hope to go to Shetland during the Easter Recess and take up some of the points in more detail.

Mr. Grimond: I am relieved to hear that. I know that the county convener and the county manager are in London in connection with the Zetland County Council Bill, which we hope will reach the statute book.
The points I have made also relate to Orkney and, I suspect, to the rest of the north of Scotland, but Shetland is the area most affected. I do not expect detailed answers tonight on these points, but they are substantive and are probably also relative to other parts of Scotland. However, they particularly apply to Orkney and Shetland because they are island communities and to that extent are bound to be self-contained.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Oil is now big business in Scotland and people here and in other parts of the United Kingdom are beginning to realise how much it can mean. I was interested to hear the points which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) made about Orkney and Shetland.
The Government might do well to refer to some Norwegian legislation which prevents the movement of rigs without the consent of the Norwegian Government and imposes many other conditions on the oil industry in Norway.
It is expected that by 1980 there might be in the North Sea 60 exploration rigs and about 40 production rigs. These could pose navigational problems or affect fishing. I understand that the Geneva Convention of 1959 lays down international conditions safeguarding these two matters.
It is clear that oil production is likely to be far in excess of the figure which was previously quoted in the House of between 75 million tons and 100 million tons a year by 1980. I think that the IMEG figure was 130 million tons. Our estimate about two years ago was 150 million tons a year by 1980, and that seems to be becoming a popular figure, although bankers in Dallas, Houston and elsewhere are apparently prepared to quote about 200 million tons a year.
These estimates have given rise to increases in the value of oil which will come from the North Sea in years to come. The quadrupling of world oil prices has thrown all existing computations of value into disarray. No one can yet say what the value of oil per barrel will be in three months' time or after that. An indication has been given by some of the OPEC countries that they expect the price to settle down at about 14 dollars a barrel. This would be a very substantial increase. Some of the auction prices for spot supplies oil have already gone to higher figures.
An article in the Banker for March by Lord Balogh, who is now Minister of State, Department of Energy, expresses some of the disquiet that many of us feel about the way in which the previous administration dealt with the oil question on what can only be described as a Rip Van Winkle basis. Lord Balogh said:
Only 15 blocks out of 2,665 licences were not allocated at the discretion of the Minister —that is the Petroleum Department—for a trifling payment: the initial payment was between £25-£45 per square kilometre; the maximum annual fee between £290-£350. The 15 blocks which were allocated by competitive bidding fetched £37 million… The licences were for 46 years.
[An HON. MEMBER: "This is old stuff."] It is, but it shows the extent to which the Conservative Government and the Labour Government up to 1970, as I think members of that Government have admitted, failed to appreciate that such substantial deposits of oil would be found in the North Sea as made it necessary to change the terms on which the areas were to be licensed for exploration.

Mr. Peter Emery: Would not the hon. Gentleman be the first to admit that two of the blocks raised over £22 million, and that to take the rest of the 13 across the board presents a very different picture? It is then interest-

ing to note that one of the blocks that was the subject of the major payment has produced no oil at all.

Mr. Wilson: I understand that drilling has been carried out on the periphery of that second block to test an adjoining field and that the whole area has not yet been drilled or fully tested. Finds of oil in other areas in the East Shetland basin have been so promising that the attention of the company concerned has naturally been diverted to other, more promising, areas.
We look forward with great interest to the Budget next week to see what action the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes on the taxation of oil to be produced from the North Sea. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will renegotiate the existing licences which have been granted and seek an early opportunity of bringing in some carried interest arrangement along the Norwegian lines. Many people in Scotland would like to see that happen as soon as possible.
Whether posted prices will be a necessary requisite for the assessment of barrelage taxes is not so clear. That was a system which was introduced when there was little sale of oil on the open market. It was then difficult to establish what the true market value might be bearing in mind that oil passed through various companies in the same group before ending up at different prices. We now have international values and the posted price system may not now be so essential.
I must warn the Government to take into consideration in negotiations with the European Economic Community two factors which are of some importance. The first is that there may be a restriction capable of being placed on the export outside the Community of natural assets of a Community country. The second factor is that when a higher price is capable of being paid by a Community country it may not be possible for Britain to reserve to itself supplies of oil or natural gas without being in breach of the Treaty of Rome.
The Government have not yet announced the policies which they will be putting forward to the Caracas conference on the law of the sea bed in a couple of month's time. As a matter of principle I might indicate, following


the remarks of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), that there is sound ground for suggesting that the ocean bed should be treated in a different way from the Continental Shelf. The Continental Shelf agreement has been reached by various countries, but it would be useful if the ocean bed were reserved to international ownership and vested in the United Nations, perhaps to be used and exploited to the benefit of humanity as a whole.
As has been made evident in the past two weeks, the Scottish National Party has a distinctive attitude towards the oil which has been found in the North Sea. We have made no secret of our belief that the oil is a Scottish asset and that it has been discovered north of 54 degrees 50 minutes, which the former Labour administration in 1968 designated should be starting point of the Scottish jurisdiction sector. Be that as it may, on Scotland's becoming a self-governing country the oil would belong to Scotland in terms of the Geneva Convention of 1959.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that all the gas is English gas?

Mr. Wilson: In making that point the hon. Gentleman is unaware of the vast stocks of gas which are to be found in the northern sector of the North Sea which would in the same way be available to Scotland. Scotland has been at the end of the queue in getting any of the natural gas which has come from the southern sector and has had to pay a substantial price for it. That price has been calculated as being marginally higher than the price charged by Soviet Russia to West Germany.
Having said that the oil would belong to Scotland, we would naturally insist on having control over it not only from the economic balance of payments or fiscal aspects but because of the need to control its exploitation and development. Such control is necessary to ensure that future generations in Scotland benefit from it. I am sure that any Scottish Government, of whatever political affiliation, would be interested in playing an active part within the British Isles in ensuring that areas in England, if they were suffering from the conditions described by the hon. Member for Fife,

Central, were helped in whatever way was possible. Further, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, we would also bear some responsibility for helping underdeveloped countries. The record of the Scottish people in outward-looking actions of this sort over the years will bear out my contention.
I have a great reservation on the question of gas from the North Sea. I hope that the Secretary of State for Energy will look into the technical difficulties which might arise in the Brent or Beryl fields as a result of gas pressures which could make it difficult to exploit the oil. The companies concerned are faced with the logistics of separating and piping the gas or flaming it. We in Scotland would not wish the gas burned off as it has been in the Middle East for years. If gas from the Brent or Beryl fields could not be extracted as an additional form of energy, we would rather see the oil remain under the sea bed until technology was so advanced as to enable both the oil and the gas to be taken out. I hope that no premature decisions will be taken by the oil companies which can be detrimental to the Scottish people.
I would like to see the Secretary of State regulate the pace of oil development as much as possible to Scottish needs. I know that he will face the problems of the British interest in trying to get the oil out as soon as possible for the satisfaction of Britain's rather clamant needs over the balance of payments. But even from the British point of view—not an attitude I normally take —this would be a short-sighted policy.
It has been calculated that there might be about only eight to 10 years' selfsufficiency—I do not mean eight to 10 years' reserves, but self-sufficiency for Britain—so there might be good reason to husband these resources.
Another reason for care is that oil is now a precious commodity. I have already told the House of my hope that it will be used for petrochemical feed-stocks, for production of protein and things of that sort, and not used as a short-term stopgap in the world energy crisis. Although the resources are great in proportion to Scotland's population, they are small in relation to world demand, and we cannot hope to keep the continent of Europe going for any length of time, unless vast resources are still


to be discovered, let alone try to keep pace with the United States or Japan, which have indicated an interest in the commodity.
I hope that the Government will bear in mind that oil is not merely there as a source of revenue—but is also a capital asset. In pursuing the development of oil, the Government should ensure that after the oil has gone there will be a substantial basis of industrial activity arising from the investment of oil revenues, or that the money will be used in capital projects for the production of another form of energy to take care of Scottish needs in years to come. The pace of development and the need for Scottish participation are both important to the people in Scotland.
Reference was made in the previous debate to the way in which Scotland is governed. The Government will be aware of the need to reduce unemployment from the high rate of 4 per cent. last month and 5·8 per cent. for males, which is a dreadful figure for a modern civilised country. The oil revenues must therefore be directed primarily to the benefit of our people.
I trust too, that the Secretary of State will liaise more closely with Norway to ensure that the common oil resources in the North Sea straddling the boundary between the two sectors are developed at a pace suitable for both countries.

1.2 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Gavin Strang): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. William Hamilton) on initiating this useful debate. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) for missing his earlier comments and I thank him for his kind remarks.
No one is more effective and skilful in raising important issues in Parliament than is my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central. During the previous Parliament we had a series of debates on this extremely important subject, and I am sure that that pattern will be repeated in this Parliament. I extend a welcome to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who I am sure will play a useful rôle in ensuing debates on this subject.
The people of Britain as a whole are at last beginning to recognise the immense economic significance of North Sea oil and gas. Last May the Government published their estimates of power reserves and production in 1980. Those figures are now well out of date and the estimates will be revised upwards. In May we hope to publish the updated estimates relating to the reserves which have been delineated by the companies. The 1980 production figure published last year was 70 million to 100 million tons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central said, we are talking about a commodity of immense economic importance to the country. One hundred million tons of oil at current prices is worth about £3,000 million.
I cannot anticipate the precise figures which we shall publish next May, but there will be an upward revision. I am not sure that they will quite reach some of the extreme figures given by my hon. Friend but there can be no denying that the figures presently published are too low.
North Sea oil presents a tremendous challenge to the present Government. It is our objective to see that the oil and gas are exploited in a way which brings the maximum benefit to the people of Britain. As my hon. Friend said, the report of the Public Accounts Committee brought out just how serious the present situation is. It showed the extent to which the British people would lose under the present arrangements, and it concluded that the Exchequer take and balance of payments gains under the present arrangements would not be comparable with what is obtained in other producing countries.
The Public Accounts Committee recommended that we should substantially improve the effective tax yield from operations on the Continental Shelf and should consider a system of quantity taxation as a means of doing that. Also, it recommended that before any new licences were issued all aspects of licensing, especially for oil, should be reviewed.
It is fair to add that the report of the Public Accounts Committee brought out how complex a matter this is. The Government are clear as to their objectives, but I am sure the House will understand that at this stage I could not spell out


the precise methods and machinery which we intend to introduce to rectify the position.

Mr. David Howell: I join in the congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his appointment at this critical time and in the welcome to him on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. Will he help us on one rather worrying matter? He was reported in Tuesday's newspapers as saying that there were plans for bringing forward legislation for North Sea oil in a year to 18 months. I found that rather puzzling, and I wonder whether he can elaborate on it. As it stands—perhaps he was not understood correctly—it is a little disturbing.

Mr. Strang: Obviously, at this stage we cannot say in which month the legislation will be introduced. We are talking here of taxation matters, of the wider question of licensing and, in particular, of the whole question of the arrangements to which I shall refer presently. But the fact that it is included in the Queen's Speech means that we attach the highest priority to this matter.
I assume that we should introduce the legislation within, say, six to 12 months. On the tax side, we can perhaps introduce it in advance of that, but on the possibility of setting up a hydrocarbons corporation, on the question of public participation and control and the rest, all these matters will have to be worked out in consultation with the companies and with the interested parties. It would, therefore, be unreasonable to expect us to be able to introduce the complete package within a month or so.
Hon. Members have referred to possible ways of going about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central referred to the suggestion—a longstanding suggestion in the Labour Party —that we should set up a national hydrocarbons corporation, or perhaps a number of such corporations. There is also the question of future licensing terms. A great deal of action is required and these are possible methods which the Government will consider when it comes to taking final, hard decisions on how to maximise the benefits of the oil to the people.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East raised the question of the rate of extraction. We should distinguish between

two aspects of this problem. The first relates to how quickly we get the oil flowing in significant quantities. The second deals with the rate at which we allow it to flow after it has begun flowing at a reasonable rate.
On the second point, hon. Members will realise that this will be decided in future, in the light of circumstances then prevailing. As to the first point, I submit that it is in the interests of everyone, including the people of Scotland, that we get the oil flowing in significant quantities as soon as possible. In the fields which we know can come on stream in 1977, 1978 and 1979—the Argyll, Auk, Piper and Forties fields—we want to see that there is minimum slippage and that we do everything possible to help all concerned to get the oil flowing.
That is not to say that there should be no control and that we will allow the oil interests to run roughshod over the interests of local communities. The Government are determined to see that this does not happen. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland had quite a bit to say about this. Planning is the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend is reviewing the planning procedures. I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Zetland Bill, in which I have a particular interest. We all hope that it will become law soon.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to what he regarded as the inadequacy of preparations for the oil. He referred to the Sullom Voe area. We all recognise that we are talking about a huge investment by the oil companies. There will be a great impact upon many areas and it is important that we are not only prepared for it but that we are prepared to maintain the necessary investment in the infrastructure. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government recognise the importance of this.
The right hon. Gentleman referred also to Drumbuie, and in this connection on the control and protection of the interests of the local people perhaps I might restate and clarify the Government's position with regard to the inquiry. Both the Secretary of State for Energy and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has planning responsibility, have said that the inquiry should run its course and


that the Government will not seek to pre-empt its proceedings by introducing a Bill to take over sites for oil development, as proposed by the previous administration. At the same time, the option of introducing such a Bill remains. We are not prepared to pre-empt the Drumbuie inquiry, but we are not saying that we shall not find it necessary to introduce such a Bill. We may do so in the future.
We want to see the inquiry completed as speedily as possible, as do most people. But, as many will have noticed, there has been some criticism of the fact that the Government this week submitted two further reports to the inquiry. These two reports have just been completed, and the Government thought it right that the information contained in them should be made available to the inquiry. Had the reports been kept secret and the inquiry allowed to go on, I think that when it eventually became known that the reports were in existence the Government would have been open to criticism for not having put all the information available before the inquiry and given the various people at the inquiry a chance to comment on it. But we hope that the inquiry will proceed speedily and be completed in the near future.
I have taken the view at the same time that probably the most urgent aspect of North Sea oil development for Scotland at present is the tremendously important matter of maximising the participation by Scottish and British industry in the supply of goods and services to the offshore operators. We want British industry involved, especially in those areas where jobs are badly needed.
In that connection my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central referred to the IMEG Report and asked whether we intended to implement its recommendations. He referred to the need for further training and education facilities. The Government agree that this is a very important area. If we are to have the maximum indigenous participation, we must be prepared to invest in training courses and in higher education for the oil industry, in the whole range of training, to create the indigenous skills which will be required.
I do not wish to go over each recommendation in the IMEG Report and

comment on it. I assure my hon. Friend, however that the Government are looking at the report again. We are concerned to achieve the objective set out in the report, which is to obtain for British industry as big a share as possible of this huge new market. It is a market which the report estimated to be something like £300 million a year. That estimate relates to outdated figures of the likely flow of oil, so that £300 million is probably a modest estimate of the annual size of the offshore market.
We are determined to achieve more oil-related jobs in the areas which need jobs and to get them on the right terms. By "on the right terms" we mean as far as possible in the places where we particularly need more jobs and as much indigenous ownership and control of the investment, new expertise and technology as is possible. Of course we welcome foreign investment and the expertise that foreign companies bring with them, but we should not lose sight of the fact that if we are to develop a long-lasting oil-related industry which will be there when the companies have moved into other waters, we can do it only if it is an indigenous industry in which we own the new technology, techniques and expertise which is developed.
I am pleased to inform the House that recently I made my first visit to the Offshore Supplies Office in Glasgow. That office was set up by the previous Government following the IMEG Report. Although they did not accept the recommendation for a PSIDB, they set up the OSO.
I should like to see more people based in Glasgow, but I must pay tribute to the work that is being done. I was tremendously impressed by the way in which those concerned go about their tasks and by the close liaison they are maintaining with officials in the Department of Industry. It is important that the Offshore Supplies Office, which is now within the Department of Energy, should work closely with officials in the Department of Industry who are responsible for operating the Industry Act.
On the important matters of maximising investment by British industry and new jobs, we must be aware of the crucial importance of a real British capability in research and development into the new


techniques required in this sector. The IMEG Report spelt out some of the areas where it is important to carry out more research and development. If we are to develop an industry that will be with us after the oil in the North Sea is exhausted, it can be done only if we have the necessary research and development at the forefront to break new ground.
Hon. Members will be aware that this is a completely uncharted area for the companies. They have no experience of the tremendously demanding and difficult conditions in the North Sea. We are already talking of moving into very deep waters. We now have an opportunity to develop an indigenous industry which depends on advanced and sophisticated technology. The Government are determined to establish a long-term industry and to spend the necessary money on research and development. A working party with outside experts has been set up to try to establish the areas where it would be in our commercial interests to concentrate our research and development.
I shall now attempt to summarise my answers to some of the questions that have been put to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central asked whether we would seek to keep the House continuously informed of developments in this sphere. I certainly take his point. It is absolutely essential for the Government to start to get control of the situation. It is important to introduce legislation as soon as possible to rectify the present disturbing position regarding the inadequate take that the Government get from the operation and the amount of public participation and control. It is also important to spell out to the House and to the country what is happening in this fast-moving industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central has a Question down to the Prime Minister on the specific responsibilities of the Minister of State, and I am sure that he would not expect me to anticipate the reply he will receive.
I think that I have covered most of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) referred to the technical question of maximising the gas that is associated with the oilfields. There is no argument about this in principle.

The Government recognise that it would be a tremendous sacrifice if we were to lose some of this valuable energy. I cannot at this stage guarantee that there will be no flaring of the gas, but our objective is to make it minimal and I shall be disappointed if we cannot organise this in such a way that we waste as little as possible of this valuable energy.
This is a big field. There are a variety of measures which the Government could introduce to tackle the problem. The Ministers at the Department of Energy have been in office for about two weeks—less than that in my case—and I am sure that hon. Members do not expect me to be in a position to state in detail precisely what measures we intend to introduce to ensure that the British people obtain the maximum benefit from the oil.
What I can do is repeat what is in the Queen's Speech, namely, that the Government regard this as an urgent matter and take the view that all necessary steps must be taken to obtain for the people of this country the maximum benefit from the oil and gas off our shores.

Orders of the Day — DISABLED PERSONS (VEHICLE LICENCES)

1.28 a.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I intend to raise briefly the question of assistance to disabled drivers, particularly with regard to motor vehicle licences.
Perhaps I may preface my remarks by offering my congratulations to the Under-Secretary of State who is in charge of the disabled. When we were the Government I used to admire the hon. Gentleman's work as adviser to the Police Federation, and I wish him well in his new post.
This is a relatively narrow debate, and my main purpose is to seek information. In particular, I should like information about the extent to which the aid that is available to disabled persons who are unable to drive themselves is being taken up.
It might be a convenience to the House to recap on this scheme. Under the 1971 Finance Act, a valuable concession was made to the disabled. This was that a disabled person who was unable to drive


himself and had to be driven was relieved of paying the £25 vehicle excise duty. That was seen as an extremely useful move. I think that it was welcomed on both sides of the House, and we should make clear straight away just whom it was intended to benefit. It was not intended for partially disabled men and women who could drive themselves, albeit in special vehicles. Other assistance is available to that group. It was intended for the totally disabled, for example, those who are paralysed, who cannot drive themselves. We are talking of a group who are in need not of our sympathy but of our practical help.
How many have been helped under this scheme? What surprises me in the Supplementary Estimates is not how much but how little public money has been spent in this area. I know that the Minister has been in office for only a short time, but I hope he can help. Has the trend been up or down since the introduction of the scheme? Is he satisfied that it is sufficiently publicised? How does the disabled man get to hear of it? I suspect that it is not widely known and that if it were better known there would be more take-up.
How many persons have applied for the scheme but been turned down? A disabled person has to satisfy a number of conditions. He must be permanently disabled, he must show that he needs to be driven, and he must be in receipt of a constant attendance allowance. Last, the vehicle must be registered in the name of the permanently disabled person and it must be "conspicuously and permanently adapted" for his use. I do not see why it should have to be in the disabled person's name; surely it should be enough that he should show that he made full use of it.
What I really cannot understand is why the vehicle should be "conspicuously and permanently adapted". I am grateful for information supplied to me by a constituent, Mrs. Martin, of Wyvern Road, Sutton Coldfield. Since her husband is permanently disabled, they applied for the £25 relief. Her husband satisfied the first three conditions—he was permanently disabled, needed to be driven, and received the constant attendance allowance—but his car was not adapted as the regulations specified, and

his application was refused. That refusal was disgraceful. I hope that the Minister will undertake that, if I give him details, he will investigate.
I am concerned with the general facts in the Supplementary Estimates.
What does the condition mean? What does it mean "conspicuously and permanently" to adapt a vehicle? Why should it be conspicuous? What is the reasoning? What kind of permanent adaptations must be made, in view of the cost involved? It can cost £25 nowadays to service a car, let alone permanently to adapt it. It is extraordinary that the adaptation may cost more than the relief that is available.
Why is it considered necessary that adaptations should be made? We are talking not about the partially disabled but about the permanently disabled. We are not talking about people who can be assisted to drive their own vehicle, in which case one could see the point in making adaptations to the vehicle. We are talking about people who, by definition, cannot drive vehicles and are passengers in them. In most cases there is no point in making any adaptations to the vehicles. Provided that the disabled person can enter a car or be placed in it, that is the end of it.
The situation described to me so eloquently by my constituent is one where it is possible for someone to be too seriously disabled to benefit from the relief now offered, where the prescribed conditions work against the good that is undoubtedly intended. The scheme is well-intentioned but is seriously defective in practice. Bureaucratic rules seem to have taken over from common sense and humanity.
I welcome the fact that a new Minister has been appointed in this area. I ask the Minister, as one of his first tasks, to consider this scheme. I ask him to study the case, of which I will give him details, to review the general policy, and, above all, I ask him for the information which the Supplementary Estimates contain.

1.38 a.m.

Mr. Ernle Money: I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has said in welcoming the Minister for Disablement to his appointment, first because


the creation of this office is a great step forward and, in particular, because the appointment of himself to that post will have given great pleasure to his friends on both sides of the House.
I ask the Minister to consider three things. First, there is the position with regard to the personalisation of this type of relief on vehicles being used solely for the benefit of the disabled person himself. In many ways a multi-purpose vehicle rather than an adapted vehicle might benefit the whole family of a disabled person and would not require the kind of adaptation of which my hon. Friend has spoken. Therefore, on economic and humanitarian grounds the rule should be reviewed.
Secondly, in connection with the criteria of which my hon. Friend spoke, it is no use having this kind of relief unless some kind of support can be given for the parking of vehicles for seriously disabled persons. I have been particularly shocked by the case, recently drawn to my attention in my constituency, of Miss Florence Gilson, who has been fighting an uphill battle—although she is without legs and also suffers from severe disability in one arm, she has shown great courage—in trying to get any sort of planning permission or support from the local authority to obtain parking facilities or any kind of shed for the vehicle that has been made available to her.
I hope that one of the things that the Minister will be able to do for the disabled in his co-ordinating function is to bring this kind of case to the attention of local authorities and try to influence them, as he did so much in his own Act —which will always be known as the Act under his name—to get local authorities to examine this type of case more seriously.
Finally, the hon. Member, above all people in the House, has fought for disabled drivers generally, in terms of invalid vehicles. I hope that now that the Sharp Report will be available on 25th of this month he will bring all his influence to bear with the Government to see that that report is made available to all the interested bodies and also made available for debate in the House at the earliest opportunity that he can persuade his right hon. Friend the Leader

of the House to provide, so that an early end can be brought to the many anomalies, and so that the present position of the three-wheeled vehicle may be examined.
Having said that, I welcome the hon. Member most warmly to his new appointment.

1.44 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I very much appreciate the warm and kindly reference to my appointment made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) who initiated the debate, just as I also deeply appreciate the generous speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money). I preface my reply with a word of welcome to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield in his new orientation as Member of Parliament for that constituency. He has addressed us with all the eloquence and force to which we became accustomed when he represented his former constituency.
I have carefully noted the case of Mr. Martin, which causes the hon. Member such clearly genuine concern, and I shall be delighted to have it fully investigated, in keeping with his request.
I shall also be glad to examine the case referred to by the hon. Member for Ipswich. As far as I can see, this will require consultation with the local authority. Nevertheless, I shall try my very best to see that the case is urgently investigated and will do whatever I can to help.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is also concerned—like his hon. Friend —with the wider question of entitlement to the benefits of Section 7 of the Finance Act 1971. The present scheme whereby disabled persons who cannot drive themselves may be entitled to a certificate of exemption from payment of vehicle excise duty was introduced following an amendment to the Finance Bill in 1971 —I refer to Vol. 820, col. 1128 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—an amendment which I am proud to have played a part in promoting. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-


Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) were also involved.
The new clause which we then added to the Bill may have seemed of no great consequence, yet I recall from my speech on that occasion an important comment by Mr. Peter Large, of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled. Mr. Large, who is himself very severely disabled, had put to me before the debate that the rule which we were seeking to correct by the new clause was a longstanding and cruel anomaly. In the view of many disabled people our victory in carrying through the new clause, although modest in effect, was at least a step forward. Many of us thought on that occasion that it was a halting step forward.
There have been strong criticisms during the debate of the extent of the improvement that we secured. To qualify for exemption a person must first be eligible for one of the Department of Health and Social Security's own vehicles. Secondly, he must be incapable of driving and controlling the vehicle. Thirdly, he must be cared for by a full-time constant attendant for which he receives an attendance allowance.
Fourthly, he must be the owner of a vehicle which has been conspicuously and permanently adapted for his own use.
The Department of Health and Social Security issues exemption certificates free of charge upon receipt of satisfactory evidence that the first three of those conditions are satisfied. The Department does not itself exempt vehicles owners from the statutory requirements as to payment of tax. The actual exemption is made by the local vehicle licensing authority, which must first satisfy itself that my Department has provided a certificate and further, that the disabled person is the registered owner of a suitable vehicle conspicuously and permanently adapted for his use.
The Department is thus but one of the links in this chain. As it does not undertake the exemption itself, the Department has no records of how many disabled people are benefiting under these arrangements. It is not possible for me to say how many certificates of entitlement my Department issues as no expenditure on its part is involved and no permanent records are kept. Such statistics would

not in any case be of great value, because the number of persons exempted by licensing authorities cannot be deduced from the number of certificates issued. A person might satisfy the conditions for an exemption certificate but not be the owner of a suitable vehicle.
I am aware that the question of take-up is of interest to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, as it will be to others concerned about provision for disabled people. I have said that my Department does not have any figures, but I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment whether such information is available and I shall write to the hon. Member about this.
The adequacy of publicity for the scheme has been questioned. Full details are given in a leaflet "Disabled People—Help with Personal Transport", which is issued by my Department as NHS leaflet No. 5. It is widely and freely available, but if the hon. Gentleman has not seen a copy I have one with me and I shall be pleased to give it to him afterwards. I am pleased to see that he has secured a copy.

Mr. Money: Could the hon. Gentleman have special discussions from time to time with interested bodies, and in particular with such people as Mr. Keith Goldsworthy of the St. Raphael Club, to make sure that they are kept fully up to date with the way in which the Department's policy is being applied in such matters?

Mr. Morris: Certainly. I am happy to hear the reference to the friend we all refer to as Goldie. His work is much appreciated on both sides of the House.
It must be doubtful whether wider publicity would significantly increase the uptake of the scheme. Many voluntary bodies and other groups which do such valuable work on behalf of disabled people have brought it to the notice of all the potential beneficiaries with whom they are in contact. The total number of eligible persons is very small. Our amendment to the Finance Bill in 1971 was extremely modest. It was estimated in 1969 that between 1,000 and 1,250 people would benefit. However, I fully accept that to the disabled people concerned it is a very important matter,


perhaps more important than some others which have exercised hon. Members in earlier debates on this Bill.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield for providing by this debate the opportunity to publicise the scheme. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced during the debate on the Gracious Speech, the future of the vehicle service and other assistance with personal transport for disabled people will be the subject of wide-ranging discussion following publication on 25th March of Lady Sharp's report on the mobility of physically handicapped people.
The hon. Members for Sutton Cold-field and Ipswich will be as pleased as as I am that Lady Sharp's report is to appear in print at last. They will not wish me to anticipate its recommendations or the outcome of discussion upon them. It would clearly not be right to consider detailed points now and out of the context of the total mobility of disabled people, but I am happy to have been able to give the assurance required of me by the hon. Member for Ipswich.
The hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field is unhappy with the present restriction that to qualify under the scheme the owner's vehicle must be conspicuously and permanently adapted for his use. It has been argued that exemption involves a loss of revenue and therefore must be policed or at least be capable of being policed. It must therefore be possible for a police officer or other authorised person to determine without difficulty whether a particular vehicle should or should not be exempt. That is one of the difficulties of the form of words that was agreed in Section 7 of the Finance Act 1971. A conspicuous and permanent adaptation to the needs of a disabled passenger enables such determination to be done by visual inspection and so prevents abuses of the scheme which might place its continuation in jeopardy.
It will be appreciated that the licensing of vehicles is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, to whom Questions may be put in the normal way.
I repeat that I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising a matter of such importance for severely disabled people, and I give him the assurance that this

Government will do whatever circumstances allow to improve their mobility.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for that assurance, but I thought the Minister said that we were dealing with 1,200 to 1,500 people. I realise that the hon. Gentleman does not have ministerial responsibility for what the Department of the Environment does, but it seems to be making rather heavy weather of the condition to bring in the full majesty of the law, with police investigations and goodness knows what else, for this small group when they already satisfy the three conditions of the Minister's own Department. Will he consider striking out that condition, which after his reply sounds a little irrelevant?

Mr. Morris: I shall arrange for all the points which have been raised in the debate to be considered carefully. The figure I quoted was between 1,000 and 1,250. That was the estimate which was made in 1969. The amendment which was made in 1971 was proposed in 1969. As I have explained, the question of numbers is extremely difficult. I am certain that my right hon. Friends who have an interest in these matters will consider carefully the points which have been made by the hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield and Ipswich. We shall be keen to do whatever we can to help in the light of all the points which have been made.
There has been a great deal of cooperation between right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to enrich the lives of disabled people by improving their mobility. There have been no party differences. If we continue to work together, I am sure that we shall succeed. We must all strive to do everything possible to improve further the mobility of disabled people.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

1.57 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome this opportunity to speak about the problems of agriculture, and particularly milk producers in the South-West of England. Before doing so it is right that I should declare an interest as a farmer. I congratulate the hon. Member


for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) on his appointment as Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The Vote refers to the implementation of agricultural price guarantees and sundry other services as well as payments to the Milk Marketing Board. It also refers to grants, loans and subscriptions to international organisations. I shall concentrate on milk, beef and pigs in the West Country.
Before Government Members say that the problems concerned with those commodities are not the Government's problems and ask why the previous Government did not do something about them, I make it clear that it is not so much the immediate problems in those commodities about which I am concerned but the Government's policies. They have already said that the industry will be faced with the creation of further problems. There is at present a real contradiction.
I welcome the aim of the new Government which is contained in the Queen's Speech—namely that there should be
the maximum economic production of food by the farming and fishing industries".
That is a good aim and something with which we can all agree. However, I hope that it is not simply a pious statement.
I am not encouraged by the agricultural record of the previous Labour Government. There was stagnation in some commodities and poor returns to many farmers. There was a 1 per cent. increase in production under the previous Labour Government as opposed to a 4 per cent. increase under the previous Conservative Government. Even now there is a contradiction between the desire for increased home production and the desire for a cheap food policy. Farmers must have a fair price if they are to provide the food the country needs, and the consumers must pay a fair price for it.
I turn now to some of the contradictions which have already emerged in the Government's policy. The Minister of State put forward the Labour Party's policy in the Farmers Weekly of 15th February, and some of it is already coming to fruition. He said, first, that low-cost producers outside the EEC must

have access to Community markets so that consumers could take advantage of lower world prices.
Do the Government realise just what this does to the home producer in sapping his confidence? Heavily subsidised imports can wreck home production, as we have seen to our cost in the past. The Government must sort themselves out in these matters. The hon. Gentleman also called for an immediate standstill on price rises in the EEC, and the Foreign Secretary said the same thing yesterday. How can farmers increase home production if they cannot cover their costs? The hon. Gentleman also said that the pressure of these changes on small farmers would be met by deficiency payments. Are these to be only for small farmers? The bulk of production is by medium and large-scale farmers.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about subsidising concentrates to the milk producer, the pig producer and so on. We import £20 million worth of feeding stuffs a year. If the Government knock off £5 a ton by subsidisation, it means that a bill for £100 million has to be faced by the Exchequer. That cannot be what the Government intend to do about concentrates.
Already, therefore, there are serious contradictions between the Government's desire to increase home production to the maximum and their preventing farmers from recouping their costs. It is a very serious matter. The Farmer and Stockbreeder declared this week:
Whatever the solution, the Labour Parts cannot have it both ways—higher production from confident farmers capable of paying their way and reduced demands both on the Treasury and on the housewife's purse.
It is a serious matter that there should be such contradictions so soon after the Government came to office. The position of the sheep farmer is reasonably good and production is increasing. There is no problem with cereals or arable crops.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Norman Buchan): I am in some slight confusion. I have no desire to stop the hon. Gentleman in full flight, especially at this hour of the night, but I should like to see the relevance of his remarks to Class V, Vote 5, Subhead H.

Mr. Mills: I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at page 33 of the Supply Estimates. I am only too pleased to explain. He will see that a Supplementary Estimate is required
in implementation of agricultural price guarantees and for sundry other services.
On page 34 he will find provision for milk, excluding milk welfare schemes, eggs and potatoes. On page 36 he will see provision for
sundry agricultural and food services including grants, loans, grants in aid
and even subscriptions to international organisations, such as the Common Market, I take it. The Vote covers a wide range of subjects.
I come back to milk. The position in the past has been good, but costs have eaten into the margin of profit. The recent review has gone a long way towards helping the milk producer, but costs are still rising fast and there is a need for increased production.
The Minister is to have the privilege soon of visiting North Tawton in my constituency to open the largest cheese factory in Europe. The milk must be produced for conversion into cheese, and with costs rising so fast farmers must be recouped so that they can produce the necessary milk. I suggest that these costs should be reviewed a little more frequently than once a year. I tried to achieve this when the Conservative Party was in Government but I was not entirely successful.
There has been progress over the years with beef production. At present there is a problem of confidence caused by factors outside the Government's control. When there is an industrial dispute and three-day working, there is bound to be a drop in consumption which makes it difficult for farmers to sell their beef. Once confidence has been restored, beef will continue to be a profitable venture for the farming community.
Pig farmers have the most serious problems. A combination of high grain prices and consumer resistance has put the pig producer on the spot. He is in serious trouble and action must be taken. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in the previous Government was considering whether the monetary compensation of about £3 per pig could be

removed. A reduction in this compensation would help considerably. I am sure that the Minister will pursue this matter keenly in Brussels this week.
I see a danger to consumers since farmers will take matters into their own hands and perhaps cut back production as the only way to get a fair return. I have heard that said in markets and other places. That would be a serious matter and not in the consumer's interest.
The rôle of agriculture is now more important than ever before. It is vital to the consumer, particularly the housewife, and it is vital in dealing with the balance of payments deficit. Every encouragement must be given for further expansion where it is needed. Certain sections are in difficulty, and it is not in the interests of the country that there should be a cut-back in production.
How does the Minister of Agriculture fit into all this? We must be fair. He cannot bear the responsibility for the present difficulties of the pig industry or the beef industry. He cannot be blamed for that.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman says that one must be fair. I almost thought he would add that one must be fair "but firm".

Mr. Mills: No, I was not bringing that in. I thought that what I was saying might please the Minister of State. We must be fair, I said, and agree that the present difficulties in the pig industry and also, perhaps, in the beef industry are not the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture. But the Minister may take it that he can and will be blamed if he does not look carefully at the problems of pig and beef producers and take what action he can in the circumstances.
It is imperative that something be done right away for the pig producer. As I said, the abolition of monetary compensatory amounts might be one way of going about it, or perhaps the introduction of a scheme for some cash per sow so that the number of sows at present being slaughtered is cut back.
There are contradictions in the Government's policies. What about what is happening in Brussels regarding the Common Market price review? I hope that the Government will reconsider their


attitude of saying that they are not prepared to accept it, and I hope also that they will reconsider their statement that they are not prepared to allow the jumps in the transitional period to go ahead. That would be a serious step, which would certainly not help towards the necessary increased production.
The intervention system does put a bottom in the market. It certainly puts a bottom in the beef market, and it helps with milk as well. I suggest that, instead of putting the commodities into store, we could put the money into store and use that. It would be better to pay out some form of deficiency payments rather than put the meat into store. I believe that the Ministry was considering that a few weeks ago. It is an important consideration which the Minister could look into with advantage. We need the 10 per cent. increase in intervention on beef, but the important question is how to get that money back to the producer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I do not wish to be difficult, but we are debating milk——

Mr. Mills: Not only milk.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: —and perhaps eggs and potatoes.

Mr. Peter Emery: It goes the whole way, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Mills: May I assist, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It is page 33 of the Supplementary Estimates:
implementation of agricultural price guarantees and for sundry other services".
It applies to a whole range of commodities, the provision now sought being £38,959,000.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the debate is governed by the subjects on page 34. That is the advice which I have.

Mr. Mills: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we should like this point cleared up. On page 36 there is a Supplementary Estimate for
sundry agricultural and food services including grants, loans, grants in aid, certain subscriptions to international organisations".
We are considering a whole range of matters covered by pages 33, 34 and 36. Is that correct?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I understand it, we are discussing the subheads on page 34. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is moving nearer to them.

Mr. Mills: Thank you for those kind words, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am nearly at the end of my speech. I still believe that while there are certain difficulties in some commodities, other sections of agriculture are doing well and flourishing. There is a great future for agriculture. We have problems, but expansion in many commodities is both possible and necessary. Surely it is in the interests of the consumer and the country as a whole to ensure that there is continued expansion of British agriculture.
I hope that the present Government will continue the work that we were doing and maintain the rate of production. This must be our aim. It is in the interests of all concerned to see that this happens.

2.10 a.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: This is the first time that I have had the pleasure of speaking when you have occupied the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that there will be many such occasions. I wish you all the best, indeed to goodness, from the whole of the House, and trust that you will continue to enjoy that position for many years.
I wish to refer to Class V, Vote 5 and the subheads dealing with milk. The Minister will realise the major problems which Devon's milk producers have faced in the past 18 months. He will be aware, too, that while they would always wish to see a little extra, the award made in the last review went a long way to meeting some of their cash flow problems and dealing with the debts they had had to incur to remain in business. It also set out a fairly promising future for them.
Milk producers are concerned about the massive increases in the cost of foodstuffs and would like an assurance from the Government Front Bench that they will give the same sort of guarantees as were given for the next 12 months by my right hon. Friend when he was Minister of Agriculture.
My farmers in Honiton are greatly concerned that, when the Government talk of providing fair prices for the housewife by way of subsidies, this will be


done at the expense of the British farmer. Even hon. Members opposite would surely be unable to support this. It must be wrong for the entire nation.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) upon his great success in his new constituency and upon raising the position of the pig farmer.
If action had not been taken on milk, we would have seen a very large contraction—

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have tried to draw attention to this before. I have the relevant document before me, and I suggest that pigs are not included under Subhead H.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is clear that we are discussing Class V, Vote 5, Subhead H, and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) will have a job to find pigs under that heading.

Mr. Emery: This whole debate is on the Supplementary Estimates, Classes I—XI. I believe that it is the right of any back bencher to raise any matter covered by those Estimates. We are regulating the debate in order that certain Ministers may be available to respond to the topics that we raise—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Honiton. He has served as a Minister, and he will be well acquainted with our ways. My advice when I took the Chair was that the agreement, which is an honourable one, was that this topic related to Subhead H. I am sure that I can rely on the hon. Gentleman's cooperation.

Mr. Emery: I am glad to have it confirmed that we are discussing the totality of the Estimates.
In making a reference to pig production, I was drawing a comparison with the position of milk producers. Apparently the Government are so worried about this that they are not willing to discuss it. If that is the way that they intend to deal with matters of this kind, we shall have to consider them more fully.
I was drawing attention to the way that the action by the previous administration to assist milk producers under this subhead had stopped a flood of people leaving the dairy industry, and I was illustrating to the hon. Gentleman that this was what was happening at the moment in the pig industry. In the West Country, more than 2,500 producers have left pig production in the past year. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has seen the figures produced by the NFU. What does he intend to do about the situation? Farmers in my constituency want to know.
Farmers have seen what another Government would do about milk, under this subhead, and we want to see where the expenditure could be used for any area. Will it be used for pigs? Will it be used to help the production of tomatoes under glass? This, again, is an area where people are massively concerned. Under this subhead, aid could be given. Farmers see aid being given to their competitors in Holland, France and Germany because of the huge increase in fuel costs. Our horticultural producers want to know where they stand. Are the Government considering an allowance under this subhead to this area of agriculture? The agricultural community would like to know.
I pose three fair and specific questions to the Minister of State. One sees the aid that has been given under this subhead. There can be no doubt about it. Therefore, the first question is: what are the Government going to do for the pig breeder and farmer?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must point out that it is impossible to find any reference to pigs in the Estimate. I am sure that the lion. Gentleman will new co-operate.

Mr. Emery: I am delighted to cooperate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to go against your wishes. However, I must point out that, whilst I have been relating my remarks to milk, there are comparisons with what is happening regarding pigs. It is right that milk should form the centre of the discussion, but, as we have a Minister to respond to the debate I thought it right to raise this other matter. If you wish, I shall pretend not to have spoken, so long as I have your assurance that I may be called at


5.30, or some appropriate time, and if the Minister will return I shall turn to another subhead. It is for his convenience that I do not try to raise the matter on more than one occasion.
Class V, Vote 5, Subhead H, "Expenditure", refers to the present provision of £65 million, and the extra revised provision shows an increase of £40 million. I am not trying to be difficult. I am referring to action under this subhead. The Government are not prepared to admit that it is possible to take action under this subhead. Therefore, I wish to ask three simple and clear questions. First, are they going to do anything for the pig producer under this kind of action? Secondly, are they going to do anything for the producer of tomatoes under glass?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a limit. The hon. Gentleman has got very near to the limit. I must ask him to accede to what I have reasonably requested.

Mr. Emery: I am trying desperately to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had hoped to stop by now. May I go over the whole of my argument again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not if the hon. Gentleman is going back to pigs.

Mr. Emery: I am trying to make it clear that a considerable amount of taxpayers' money has been voted under a specific subhead which has been used for one purpose only at this stage. It is within the Government's power to use that money in other areas.
The logic of my argument is that the Government have taken this action. They have been able to provide a guarantee for the milk producer for the ensuing period.

Mr. Tom King: Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend. Tremendous clarity of distinction is being drawn between the pig producer and the milk producer. Some people are doing both. They are the same animal, so to speak. The action that is taken on milk can decide whether some people continue in agriculture and the action that is taken on pigs can decide whether others stay in dairy farming. That may help to resolve the matter and show that we can discuss the whole subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is very helpful. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. However, we are not going to discuss pigs at the moment under this subhead. We must confine ourselves to what the normal rules of the House require.

Mr. King: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may not have made myself sufficiently clear. We are talking about milk production in the West Country. That is totally relevant and in order. I am a West Country Member and some of my constituents are engaged in both milk and pig production. Their incomes are produced jointly from the two sources. Their ability to remain in business is finely balanced at the moment. This is a serious subject. The livelihoods of many small farmers who have put all their savings into this activity are involved. They have a small dairy herd and some pigs. They are dependent upon the income from those two activities. If either of the activities crumbles, both are threatened. If sufficient action is not taken on pigs, milk production will be reduced. With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this must be relevant.

Mr. Emery: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out what to me is so basically obvious about the smallholdings in the West Country that it seemed to be a statement of the obvious.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman is not as intelligent as that.

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman may not appreciate the difficulties confronting smallholders, particularly in the West Country. His humour and laughter on this occasion——

Mr. Buchan: I was not laughing.

Mr. Emery: —will not be appreciated by the small farmers.

Mr. Buchan: I was not laughing.

Mr. Emery: Whether or not the hon. Gentleman likes my saying so, the fact is that he was laughing. If he says that he was laughing at something else, that is another matter.

Mr. Buchan: It is not true.

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman should not say that, because three of my hon. Friends were looking at him, and he was roaring with laughter. It


may be that he was laughing at some private joke. The hon. Gentleman does not like the facts. [Interruption.] I do not expect the Minister of State to comment from a seated position.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is due to the time of the morning, I believe. Interruptions from a sedentary position are not welcome, and they are of no help.

Mr. Emery: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to require your protection.
I come back to the situation that I have been trying to underline. It is obvious that hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench do not like this probing. Small farmers in the West Country are tied up with milk production and many other aspects of farming. Unless the Government and the Minister understand that and are willing to put their minds to it—and that is what the debate is all about—farmers in my constituency will be desperately worried.
Therefore, as I said about six minutes ago, I conclude by asking the Government to help the small farmer. I should have thought that the Government would want to help farming. What are the Government thinking of doing to help the smallholder who is concerned about pigs, milk, horticulture and feeding stuffs? There is no doubt that the price of feeding stuffs on international markets has risen.
During the election campaign many Socialist candidates swept aside as irrelevant the fact that prices in overseas markets were rising. The Minister does not agree, but I could produce reports of speeches showing that to be so. The Minister now has responsibility for dealing with this matter, which is of major concern to farming. What are the hon. Gentleman and the Government going to do about the price of basic feeding stuffs? These affect the whole issue—not only milk, but beef and, dare I mention it, pigs.
May we have from the Minister tonight a statement that will help our farmers in the West Country? If the hon. Gentleman makes a clear statement, farmers throughout the country will understand what the Government's policy is. If the Government give the

farmers a fair deal—and that will mean increased prices, whether we like it or not—that will be excellent. But if farmers are again required to subsidise cheap food the Government will create a terrible problem in the farming community in the months ahead.

2.35 a.m.

Mr. Tom King: We on this side greatly appreciate your presence in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that at this unholy hour you have had some farmyard mysteries to resolve, but we welcome you sincerely. This is the first time I have had the pleasure of speaking under your eagle eye. I shall speak briefly, which I hope will commend me to your favour in future. I hope that the fact that I am brief will encourage the Minister of State, whom I also welcome to his new post, not to wonder too much about whether I am within the scope of the Estimates but to talk seriously about agriculture.
I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) in raising this acutely serious subject. Two of my hon. Friends have spoken for the noble county of Devon; I speak for Somerset, in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), who, because they wish to speak later on another subject, cannot take part in this part of the debate. But their acute concern about agriculture is not diminished. We have similar constituencies, with many dairy farmers and others, including pig farmers.
I do not want to speak in a party political sense. I have considerable sympathy with the Minister of State. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West, who has held office in the same Ministry, will agree that no Minister could enter that Ministry at a more difficult time. The situation is volatile, but is not one of unrelieved gloom. It is almost more unhealthy: feast and famine. Grain farmers have done very well, some making greater profits than ever before, but livestock producers are embarrassed.
The divergences in the past year have encouraged basic changes in agriculture. People have switched from a pattern that they may have followed for a lifetime.


The plough has been seen at work in fields where one would never have expected to see it. Traditional dairy areas are being ploughed up because of the financial incentives of grain production. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton has said that last week in Taunton market the number of sows going for slaughter was three times the normal figure.
In these circumstances speedy action is vital. The Minister of State is unlikely to be able to make firm statements tonight. I know that the House is waiting anxiously to hear from his right hon. Friend what action will be possible following his visit to Brussels, particularly on the beef and pig situation. There is need for urgent action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West mentioned confidence. The agricultural community is uneasy. Farmers have for years accepted cycles—variations from year to year: a bad year, a disappointing year, a better year. They have not previously experienced the sort of years they are now experiencing—one or two years of remarkably good results and now a year of very bad results.
This is the prospect. They do not now have the confidence to say "We will sweat this out. We are used to cycles. It is just the same old up and down. This year is a bad year." They are saying "It is disastrous" and, especially with high interest rates on any loans they may have from banks, they are not able to take the rough with the smooth. They are saying "We must get out now."
There seemed to be a balance of power in the new Government. There seemed to be a division, with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection covering food prices. So there is a conflict. Every Government recognise the difficult problem of balancing the interests of the producer and those of the consumer. However, when the appointments were announced it appeared that matters were balanced and that the two interests would be represented at Cabinet level.
Many of my hon. Friends were acutely worried when they heard the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announce what the brief was to

the man who was thought to be the champion of the food producers. It appeared that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries had suddenly been given the brief of the price watchdog and had been sent to Brussels, not to champion the producers' interests but to look after the consumers' interests. This is a dilemma for any Government.
What will worry farmers in my constituency and throughout the West Country is that the dice are loaded against them and that there are two members of the Cabinet who are interested principally in the consumer and not in the producer.
As I said earlier, the Minister of State has inherited a very difficult situation. If in this difficult situation confidence crumbles further, although right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side may by various action be able to hold down prices and prevent producers from getting a fair return, it will be very much a Pyrrhic victory. Supplies will dry up, producers will cease to produce and—I was about to say that the Government would sow a wind and reap a whirlwind. They may not reap anything, because there will not be anything to reap. Worries about prices will then go out of the window. The worries will be about supplies. Prices will soar and right hon. and hon. Members opposite will have reaped the results of their policies.
Therefore, in a serious national situation, and I hope in a non-controversial sense, so far as possible, I urge upon the Minister of State the worries that my constituents and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends have. The need for action is urgent on the problems facing agriculture, particularly the milk producers in the West Country. It is particularly important too that such action be taken in a way that will assure producers that their interests will be watched continually.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West that it is ludicrous in a volatile situation to continue to think that it is possible to predict totally and accurately what the situation will be for the whole of the following year.
We must create a situation in which regular reviews are made, so that matters may be kept under control—and not because the farmers are necessarily looking for more money. In certain circumstances


the Government may be able to save money. If there were a decline in feeding stuff prices, economies could be made in Government expenditure. But there must be this provision, so that farmers can have confidence that in a difficult situation their interests will receive proper consideration and we can ensure that food production continues to expand, not in a meteoric or feverish way but in a steady and positive way, which will provide the best assurance not only for farmers' incomes but for stability of prices in the shops.

2.46 a.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Norman Buchan): We can be pleased tonight that one hon. Member has redeemed the honour of the West Country by making a serious speech on what is a serious problem. I thank him for that, because the circus that we saw before did not reflect the mood of the House or the realities and difficulties of the situation that we are facing. I am pleased that one serious speech has been made.
I did not expect a serious speech from the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) but I expected a more serious approach from the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills). He should realise that we who work together for the agriculture industry do not knock each other or use the kind of comment that he made tonight. In this matter we have known each other for many years. The hon. Member has known my dedication to the industry and my work for it. I did not expect much more than we got—a circus performance—but I was pleased that one Member made an excellent and thoughtful speech on some of the basic problems that we have to resolve.

Mr. Mills: I am astounded at what the Minister has said. I made it clear from the beginning that I congratulated him. I said that we could not blame the present Minister of Agriculture. Exactly in what respect does the hon. Member think that mine was an unfair speech?

Mr. Buchan: I did not say anything about that. I am talking about the hon. Member's co-operation in what I believe was a breach of the conventions of the House, if not of the rules. No one who has been in the House this evening will

disagree that we have not had the discussion about milk production which we were supposed to have. We have, however, produced one speech that was thought-provoking and to which we must pay attention.
I shall try to deal not with the subject that we were supposed to discuss—I thought that the hon. Member for Devon, West was interested in the milk industry but he chose not to be concerned in probing its problems—but with some of the wider problems affecting the agriculture industry, to which the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) referred.
First, I want to deal with one or two points and implications raised by the hon. Member for Devon, West. I congratulate him on the change of title of his constituency, from Torrington to Devon, West. I do not know whether the change will help his seat. I hope that he will not lend himself further to the kind of behaviour we have had tonight.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgwater that no Minister of Agriculture has come to power in a more difficult situation. That being so, it seems rather glib of the hon. Member for Devon, West to blame the present situation facing the nation, in terms of pigs, upon a Government who have been in office only two weeks. He excuses the argument on the ground that he was concerned not with what has happened but with the future policies of the Government, as if events from last August until now had been caused by the future policies of the Government. Since last August I have been asking in speech after speech for action regarding livestock producers. Other hon. Members said in general that we should not wait for the price review, but I was saying this in particular during what was a grave situation and I was suggesting ways of dealing with that situation without waiting for the review.
It is a bit much for hon. Members to say that they are not concerned about the policies which have given rise to the present situation in the industry and that they are concerned only with the future policy of the Government. The slaughtering of cows in calf meant the future depletion of the herd, and a


massive injection of money was needed. The previous Government left the situation too long before dealing with it. They could have saved money and the herd had they acted earlier. It is a bit rich to say such things as hon. Members say to us now.
As we come into office I am also faced with a similar situation regarding pigs. I hope that what some hon. Members have said tonight will not have done anything further to shake confidence in the industry. I deplore the attitude of some hon. Members because of how it may affect that confidence. I hope that there will not be more slaughtering of pigs.
I am anxious to improve confidence in the industry, but it is not possible tonight to give any firm promises or policy statements. Discussions are being held on Thursday and Friday between my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture and other Agriculture Ministers in the Common Market. Let us remember that it was the Opposition, with assistance from some other hon. Members, who took us into the Common Market. The Opposition cannot put the blame on us simply because we want to hold up our policies for a few days.
One of the grave problems facing agriculture is the imbalance which has struck the industry. The ploughing up of land used for livestock has upset the natural pattern. We have discussed the matter in relation to the break crop and the spread of monoculture.
Interest rates are now such that it is no longer a case of taking the rough with the smooth. Some people are saying that they want to get out of the industry. In view of high interest rates, they are asking what return they are getting for their investment. If confidence is shaken, further doubts arise. For instance, pig producers will say that they cannot continue to produce at a loss.
The Government have to look at all the problems facing the industry. During the past two weeks I have met representatives of probably every major organisation concerned with livestock, the dairy trade, the meat trade and farmers' unions. Representatives of organisations in Ulster have been among those I have met. Agriculture plays a bigger rôle in Ulster's economy than it does in this country.
There is no contradiction in our policy between the desire for a fair return for the farmer and a fair deal for the housewife. It is simply not true to say that the only way of getting a return to the farmer is by high end prices.
I think that the hon. Member for Devon, West and the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), would argue that that way—the market way—is the right way to do it. But it can be done in other ways. There could be a crude subsidy or we could adopt the kind of intelligent agricultural policy which secures support and a proper farm income return without necessarily having high prices. That is the system we worked in this country for 20 years, a system which transformed our agriculture from the depression of the 1930s to the present position. I see that the Chairman of the 1922 Committee agrees.
The hon. Member for Devon, West said that he was not worried about intervention, which puts a bottom on the market. He was really asking "Why not bring in a guarantee and deficiency payments system?". I think he used the term "deficiency payment".
We are saying that there are other methods of dealing with the situation besides leaving it to the market. There is no reason to say that there is an argument between two Ministries and that there is a contradiction between statements I have made before and during the election and now. If one says that there are other means of supporting agriculture besides having high prices paid by the consumer, the contradiction goes. We have to devise methods of giving farm support without merely leaving it to the end price. Therefore, that argument goes.
What remains? There is the Common Market problem. We cannot make a statement on pigs, milk or livestock tonight, as those who asked the questions know. But I do not think that a lack of concern for the British farmer is shown when we say that our remit for the discussion on Thursday and Friday is to prevent further price increases for the consumer in Britain. Our intention is to achieve a settlement which will not have a direct effect on prices for the consumer in the shops. That is objectionable only


to those who see the only means of supporting farming as being a 10 per cent. beef price increase. If we accept that there are other methods, that argument falls. Therefore, the situation is not as hon. Members have described it tonight.
The suggestion that we have become a Government for consumers only and not for producers, is not warranted. I can understand the reasoning behind the argument, but naturally I would rather the suggestion were not made. I hope that it is not developed, because I do not want to lose the strong connection that has always existed between the industry, the individual farmer and this great Department of State, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
It is not only a consumer problem. We see farming as another major industry like other industries. It is the supremely important industry of this country. Precisely because we are a major industrial and trading nation, and because of changes in the world, the development of our agriculture must have high priority. We see the matter as an industrial problem, a problem of the industry as well as of the consumer. It is of no value to the farmer to have him permanently in opposition to the consumers. That is no good to him.
If the farmer is placed in a position in which he can make progress only by continually fighting for higher prices, he is brought into conflict with the consumer. It is that conflict to which we are opposed. We believe that such a conflict will not help the long-term interests of the farming community, hence the reason for my statement on 15th February. Hon. Members should buy a copy of the Labour Party's agricultural policy document. It is very cheap. It spells out the position in better English than that which is used in my interview and in even more detail.

Mr. Tom King: The Minister has an interesting theory about a possible conflict. Does he believe that Marks and Spencer is permanently in conflict with its customers?

Mr. Buchan: No, that is not the point. If Marks and Spencer had to go to the Government for permission to put up the price of its food because it was the firm's only means of survival, or if it

had to put up the price of its clothes, that would possibly cause a conflict.
We all know that agriculture is too important to be left only to the producers. The Government are involved. We are involved whether we like it or not. We have not suggested that we should step aside. If the Government are involved and the only method of negotiation left to the farmer is to demand higher and higher prices, that will constitute a permanent conflict between the needs and interests of the farmer and those of the consumer. That is why we say that we must seek harmony. That is why we say we are not simply a party for the consumers. We are also concerned about the industry.
If we were to develop a situation which resulted in shortages, a conflict would arise. It is precisely because we recognise that situation that we say that the farmer must have a fair return. It is because we wish to avoid conflict between the farmer and the consumer that we established the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. I shall spell out later today the rôle of that Department in food matters. Food prices and the retail problem will belong to that Department. I shall not go into the details, but there is no divergence and no conflict. On the contrary, there is now a balance which the country has needed for some time. The two Departments are working together extremely closely, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection will testify.
I have dealt with some of the serious points which have been raised. I reject a number of the criticisms which have been expressed. We have inherited a difficult situation. The hon. Member for Honiton, who turned the House into a bear house, must accept from me that the situation is difficult. There has never been a worse situation than the one we have inherited. However, with a method and with the means, the intention and the will to develop the interests both of the consumer and of the industry, we shall succeed.
Hon. Members will know that I cannot make any promises or make any decisions of any kind tonight. I think that the hon. Member for Bridgwater will recognise that situation. I am not


sure what the purpose of the exercise was at the end of the day, but at least it led to an exchange of agricultural philosophy which at three o'clock in the morning is no bad thing for our souls. One hopes that it has done no harm to the industry.

Orders of the Day — CONSUMER PROTECTION

3.4 a.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann: I hope that you will not rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I begin by adding my felicitations to those which have already been expressed to you in your new responsibilities. You will know of the immense stock of good will that there is for you in the House. We all realise the special difficulties which face the Chair in this rather curious Parliament. We hope in the interest of the House that all goes well with you.
If I may trespass a little more, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope you will allow me to say how much I appreciated the typical courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) in associating my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and myself with his remarks in the last debate. It was only the rules of order which prevented both my hon. Friend and I from leaping to our feet and joining in the debate.
The Minister of State pointed out, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, that it was an important and worrying subject which must be considered at an intensely difficult time. We shall look forward, as the Minister indicated, to hearing the statements which the Government have to make in due course when the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries returns from Brussels. We wish him every success in solving what are enormously difficult and worrying problems.
I turn now to the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. I greatly appreciate the presence of the Under-Secretary of State. My reason for raising the subject at this late hour is my immense anxiety about it. The basic question is simple. The good sense of

Parliament votes a great deal of money to the Department, and it is justifiable to inquire what it is trying to do and what is the logic of its actions. The House will undoubtedly believe that, on the face of it, what has been proposed by the Department in general hitherto has been wise and justified, and I know that the hon. Gentleman in any case would not lend himself to any other policy.
Consumer protection is a bipartisan policy in the House. Long may that be so. I was proud of the previous Government's actions in consumer protection, which has a very long history going back to the Sale of Goods Act 1893. It is undeniable that as the standard of living has risen, so the subject has become more topical. Increased prosperity has led to wider purchases on a very much larger scale and to the need for protection and to deal with such abuses that existed and which might exist in future. We are all agreed about that. The House was delighted when a Minister was appointed for consumer protection and is equally delighted that the appointment was continued in the new Government. It is also delighted at the new coordination between various Government Departments and it is good to think that that, too, will continue.
The previous Government introduced the Fair Trading Act and the appointment of the Director-General of Fair Trading, who has made a very good start. It will be interesting to see how his work develops. Following that was the proposal to have a network of local consumer advisory services, but it worries many of us that local authorities will have to meet an extra burden of expenditure in this regard. We have also seen the strengthening of the consultative committees in the nationalised industries and the new rules for enforcement in the county courts. We have also had the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act, the date-stamping of foodstuffs and the legislation to deal with pyramid selling. All of this has been very remarkable progress in recent years, not least during the term of the previous Government.
If we are to vote the money asked for in these Supplementary Estimates, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to assure us plainly that the sort of progress which has been made under the


bipartisan policy will continue. We were all sorry that the Consumer Credit Bill could not be proceeded with. Many sensible suggestions had been made for its amendment and improvement. I hope that the Government intend to reintroduce it at an early date.
Under Item A there is proposed expenditure of £81,000 for headquarters offices, and under Item C expenditure of £56,000 for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I support this expenditure in general, but there are two specific matters to which I want to draw attention.
It is absolutely right that we should legislate against monopoly and that we should say that we will not allow any commercial concern to abuse its authority, power, strength and financial resources in any way to hold the community to ransom. On the other hand, many of us are extremely concerned—I suspect that many hon. Members on the Government benches share this concern—at the increasing tendency of the State to establish monopoly. It is a tendency that increases rather than diminishes, and I warn the Under-Secretary of State that this is a matter that we shall all watch with care as time goes on.
I do not believe that size is necessarily a criterion of efficiency. Speaking as a supporter of the coal industry, I think that one of the tragedies of nationalisation is that we have not developed the coal industry in the practical ways we should have done. I hope that one lessen we shall learn from current international events is that this requires to be done effectively and properly.
When the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is doing its work, which it does with great efficiency—and it is an extraordinarily difficult field—one of the matters it looks at is the profitability of industries. I am bothered by certain comments I hear in the House and publicly on the subject of the profitability of British industry. If I may recount a personal experience, during the last election campaign at a multitude of public meetings I was asked questions on this subject. I invariably replied that the profitability of British industry on the whole was much too low. I am shocked to find that we are nearly at the bottom of the international league tables—for instance, those for investment published by OECD.
Investment in new plant and machinery can come only from profits. Although figures of tens or hundreds of millions of pounds may look large to the uninitiated or the uninformed, only if British industry is profitable can it give guarantees of employment today and in the future. Only if British industry is highly profitable can it invest the vast sums that are needed to keep it ahead in the strongly competitive race that we have to run vis-à-vis other nations. Only if British industry is highly profitable can it bring, as it needs to do, the maximum capital to the British worker's elbow.
I hope that, in their administration of the affairs of the Department, Ministers will have these matters very much in mind. It will be fatal for the country and its future prospects if we ignore the need to plant the seed corn for future prosperity and if we ignore the need to see that British industry is profitable at all times and considerably more profitable than it is to-day.
I pass to Subhead B. The Government are obviously concerned with the level of prices, and expenditure on the Price Commission is the greatest part of the total. How sincere and how fair are the Government in their endeavours? I am not making a judgment; I merely ask the question. The Government have taken several actions in a very short time. Indeed their speed has been remarkable, and this no doubt has created an impression in the minds of the public that the Government are determined to do all they can to keep prices down.
We all know the difficulties. The country is bedevilled by an international situation over which it has no control. I accept that intentions are honourable, and what is happening today follows from statements of the sort made by Labour Party candidates at the last election. Thus we have a freeze on rents, for instance, and today we had the great announcement, which will hit the headlines tomorrow, no doubt, that we are to hold down the price of bread.
On the face of it, that looks fine. In the county of Somerset, however, we have a local matter which is worrying us all, namely, the way in which local rates are being handled. This is quite out of line with the other work which the Department is doing. Indeed, one might almost


say that what the Government are proposing is eccentric.
I have been nothing but a critic of the predecessors of the present Government in that regard, as hon. Members will recall. There is no need to go into detail. Announcements were made in January 1973 of changes in the arrangements. There was a loss of grant, which meant an inevitable increase in local rates. The House may recall that I questioned my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, and I complained very much at the way in which he was dealing with the matter. He was good enough to take note of the representations which came—I mention them in particular since we are talking about Somerset—from my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater and for Wells, among others. The upshot was that adjustments were made, and it was arranged that county districts were to receive additional assistance for the domestic ratepayer. That was good, and it was greatly appreciated.
Suddenly all is now changed again, and seriously changed. There have been two consequences. First, local districts, which are already grappling most efficiently with the problems of reorganisation, have a huge additional work load thrust upon them. This is creating enormous difficulties. The second problem is more obvious. Because of the Secretary of State's decision to abolish the variable domestic relief and to substitute for it a flat-rate relief of 13p for all authorities, the Somerset domestic ratepayer will face further rate increases of between 5½p and 9½p. In plain English, that means that in the county of Somerset we shall find a total increase in our rates of between 35 per cent. and 85 per cent. Those are astounding figures.
What representations has the hon. Gentleman's Department made to its fellow department? What is the Price Commission doing in this regard? Why should we be voting money for the salaries of good people to examine prices and do their best to keep prices down if, suddenly, the Government take other action which, quite unexpectedly results in swingeing price increases?
I should make plain that there is no question of our suddenly having become

profligate in Somerset. There has been the most stringent economy, to such an extent that favourite projects which many of us have in our constituencies—I have mentioned the new youth club centre in mine—are not now being proceeded with. We have special difficulties in our county because, as my hon. Friends here tonight will know, our county has been truncated. It was against our will, because we voted against our colleagues and would willingly do so again if the situation arose. There are additional costs and expenses as a result. We have known a most serious situation which is not of our own making.
May I be a little more specific and talk about my constituency for a moment? Every shop and every business in my constituency will face an additional rate bill this year amounting to a 62 per cent. increase. We are not a rich county. It is not easy to get industry or business established in our part of the world. Yet we have no special assistance. Now there is to be this swingeing increase. It is not fair.
Let us look at the situation of the private ratepayer. I cannot give the exact figures because they have not yet been announced, but I think I have calculated them just about correctly. In the new Taunton Deane authority, which divides into four parts because it is an amalgam of four old local authorities, there is Taunton borough. Here the rates will increase by nearly 50 per cent. for private and council households alike. In the rural area rates will increase by nearly 80 per cent. for council and private households. In the Wellington borough area the figure is a "mere" 55 per cent., only just over half as much again. In the Wellington rural district, where I live, the increase is of the order of 85 per cent. Never before in my 18 years in this House have I known a situation in which there were such substantial increases without a transitional period at least. This is unfair.
I ought perhaps to justify that assertion. I can best do so by giving other examples. In Bristol, for instance, just by comparison—that is a rich place—the rates will rise by a mere 13 per cent. In Cardiff—if you do not mind my mentioning this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you will know of the friendly rivalry we


have with South Wales, not least on the rugby field—rates are coming down by 16 per cent. You know better than anyone, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Cardiff is richer than Taunton or Wellington or any village in my constituency.
There are in Bristol and Cardiff very much better services than we can afford in the countryside. We do not resent that or regret it. We wish you success, except, again, on the rugby field. Why should Cardiff's rates come down by 16 per cent. and the rates in Wellington rural area go up by 85 per cent? For the people in my constituency—council house tenants, proprietors of shops, people trying to run industries—this is nothing short of catastrophic.
We have all spent a good deal of time recently going round the villages and towns, talking to people. Everyone would agree that there has been much resentment about the difficulty which householders are experiencing in making ends meet, paying mortgages and the rest. What an added burden this is. I say without fear of contradiction that many people living in my part of the world, in our county of Somerset, will have real difficulty in making ends meet.
Why is this? What is the sense of voting substantial sums of public money to a Government Department which is assumed to be protecting the consumer when we find that some consumers, who are not the best off in our country, are not being protected but are being penalised as against people living in other parts of the country? What is their crime? I do not know what it can be.
I beg the Under-Secretary to consider this matter with very great care. Perhaps he cannot give me a full answer now. I shall understand if that is the case. I hope he will appreciate, however, that in all parts of the House there will be the most bitter resentment about this situation.
My colleagues and I, together with representatives of the county of Somerset, have asked to see the Secretary of State urgently. We have asked him to look again at the situation, and I hope he will——

The Under-Secretary of State for prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): Will the right hon. Gentleman make it plain which Secretary of

State he has asked? I understand it not to be my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.

Mr. du Cann: That is entirely right. We have asked to see the Secretary of State for the Environment. But this is the only method that I have of raising the matter tonight. It is the quickest and best way of doing it. I said at the beginning of my speech that I was determined to raise it because of the great interest that we all feel. I appreciate that I am not referring to the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. In any event, my constituents do not differentiate between one Minister and another. They are all part of the same administration, and they must accept collective responsibility for what any one of them does.

Mr. Tom King: I remind my right hon. Friend that the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection announced to the House today an element of subsidy designed to restrain the cost of living. The right hon. Lady was challenged by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) about the problem of rural constituents with higher costs. The right hon. Lady said that she was concerned to protect people in the countryside against increased costs. I hope that she will also be knocking on the door of the Secretary of State for the Environment about this. What is the point of protecting council house tenants from an increase in the price of bread and at the same time slamming them with an increase five times as great?

Mr. Du Cann: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his support. I hope that the Under-Secretary will impress upon the right hon. Lady the need to have urgent conversations with the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is no good Parliament voting huge sums to this Department if it is to be ineffective. Furthermore, we shall not tolerate Ministers coming to this House and announcing with a flourish subsidies for this, that and the other, pretending that they are doing an effective job, if, behind the backs of us all, a most ineffective job is being done. My constituents do not care too much about a penny on a loaf of bread by comparison with a rate increase of £1 or £2 a week. The two are not even.
I wish the new Government every success. They have a difficult and tremendous job to do. But I hope that we shall not look back on this period and say that it was not so well done and that it was mere humbug. I hope we do not have to say that, and that the Under-Secretary will be able to give me a great deal of assurance.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Frank McElhone: I did not intend to speak in this debate until the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) talked about humbug. I hope that he will not mind if I accuse him of humbug by going on to speak about rents, mortgages and prices affecting people in rural areas. I am sure that he is as much concerned about those who live in cities as those who live in rural areas. One reason for the help that is given by way of rate support to cities like Manchester, Birmingham and, I hope, Glasgow is that council tenants have suffered grievously.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Member spoken during one of the earlier debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill?

Mr. McElhone: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spoke on Kilbrandon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then the hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.

3.31 a.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I should like to add my congratulations to the splendid Celtic flavour that we have in the Chair. I am delighted to see you there, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) spoke about the advances that have been made in consumer protection during the last few years. I entirely support him in believing that hon. Members on both sides of the House want a better deal for the consumer. I am sure that this is a nonpartisan view. In this inflationary age it is vital that we do more to help people in their daily lives to carry out their essential shopping with the greatest efficiency and the least inconvenience.
My right hon. Friend mentioned profitability. I think that he was probably referring to large businesses. However, I hope that the new Secretary of State

for Prices and Consumer Protection will be very careful about what she says and does regarding the profits of small businesses and shops in rural areas. The profits of small shops and businesses represent the wages of the people who run them. Therefore, if those profits are to be cut, as is rumoured, by 10 per cent., or even 5 per cent., it will be a direct cut in the wages of the people running small businesses. The Minister will be working against her aim of helping the consumer if she cuts out the smaller businesses in this country.
My right hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that getting a better deal for the consumer also involved the cost of running and maintaining the house in which he lives.
My constituents are alarmed by the grossly inflationary increases in both domestic and business rates in our area. Our county and district authorities have done their best to contain the increases within the limits recommended by the last Government. They have taken a great deal of trouble to keep down costs to the ratepayer, who is the consumer. Therefore, it is even more galling when they find this sudden, unexplained and inexplicable reduction in the domestic rate relief.
It is a serious matter for those living in rural areas to have a sudden increase in rates. It affects them possibly more than those who live in the inner-city centres, because they do not have the inner-city advantages. They do not have adequate bus and rail services, adequate lighting, and, in many instances, adequate sewage services. They will find themselves paying this alarming increase—in some cases 85 per cent. more than last year—for services which they do not receive. It cannot be right, in the name of consumer protection, for consumers to be made to pay these huge sums to enable others living elsewhere to get advantages that are not available to them.
I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman, whom we are delighted to see on the Front Bench in this responsible position, to the fact that it is all very well to utter platitudes about being on the side of the consumer and on the side of the council tenant and not wishing to put up his rent, and so on, but the fact is that what has been done for them


has been greatly diminished by the extraordinary and arbitrary action of another Department on the question of rates. Why has it been done? We have not had this explained. One might think that the Minister had set out to deal a hefty blow to areas such as Somerset, where the Labour vote crumbled at the last election, but then one discovers that he has done the same thing for his own supporters' areas.
This is a gross injustice, because it is not like raising taxes according to what people can pay. As everyone knows, rates bear little relationship to what the individual can pay or to the income coming into the house. Many of my constituents will suffer grave hardship as a result of this withdrawal of a large part of the domestic rate relief.
I do not know how they will find the money. They cannot lay their hands on further income. Many of them are on small occupational pensions. Many of them saved for years in order to retire to our area. They laid their plans extremely carefully. They bought their houses on the basis of what they considered they could afford at the time, but following the recent election, they have discovered how wrong they were. This increase will make it extremely difficult for many of these retired people to continue to live in this area where expenses are rising rapidly. The price of petrol is one example of rising costs. This has nothing to do with the Government, but the increase has hit those who live in rural areas much harder than those who live in the cities.
I share the concern that has been expressed on various occasions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) about the alarming increase that has been imposed so arbitrarily as an act of instant government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the seriousness of this matter.

3.40 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): May I add my felicitations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your recent appointment, which has given us so much pleasure?
When the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said that consumer protection was essentially a nonpartisan matter, a sentiment echoed by his hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), I was inclined to the view that there was substance in what he was saying—until the end of his speech, when he seemed to try to inject a note of partisanship into a discussion of the problem of rates.
I will deal briefly with that matter later, but I should like to begin by welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's response to the establishment of a separate Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. This has been generally welcomed in the House and the country. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the debate on the Address on 14th March, we believe that this Department has come to stay, because it deals with matters which so fundamentally affect the life of every human being on the country.
This country is not alone in that opinion. There has been a separate department of consumer affairs in Canada for many years and, in the shape of the ombudsman, what amounts to a separate department in Sweden. The new Department will bring together the officials of the former Department of Trade and Industry and of the Ministry of Agriculture who were concerned with the prices of food, goods and services and those sections of the former DTI which were concerned with fair trading standards, weights and measures and consumer credit.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's emphasis on the rôle which could be played by local authority consumer advisory services. If he expressed some anxieties about the burdens which this would place upon them, he will also have welcomed the recent statements by the Birmingham City Council about its anxiety to play a full part in this respect.
This concentration of effort on consumer affairs and the close linking of all the questions involved in the control of prices is a step forward in the machinery of Government and the easy and efficient dispatch of Government business. The marking and listing of prices and the subject of unit pricing have long been dealt with by those officials concerned with the administration of the Weights and


Measures and Trade Description Acts. They will now work closely alongside their colleagues dealing with prices questions and I hope that this will show fruitful results in the legislation which we hope shortly to bring forward to deal with prices. It is also convenient to have in the same Department machinery for dealing with misleading prices and the control of prices charged by monopolies. Here I am thinking of the work of the Director-General of Fair Trading and the Monopolies Commission, both of which now report to my right hon. Friend, as does the Metrication Board, which has an increasingly important rôle to play as metrication extends to ordinary household goods.
The right hon. Member for Taunton regretted that the Consumer Credit Bill had been lost on the dissolution of Parliament. As was indicated in the Gracious Speech, the Government intend to reintroduce the Bill, with some amendments which I hope will prove acceptable to the House, as soon as possible. The general objectives of the Bill will be to provide consistent and adequate protection for the consumer across the whole spectrum of credit and hiring transactions; to build on the foundations of existing hire purchase legislation, adding much new protection and to extend it to a far wider range of transactions. It will also release the credit industry from certain existing out-dated restrictions and allow the development of competition between different types of business.
The Bill will start a new era in consumer protection in the credit field, giving the consumer comprehensive protection. We hope that it will be a flexible measure allowing for future developments and changing needs for protection to be dealt with by means of regulation. Increased availability of information will promote greater competition between lenders and enable consumers to choose the type and source of credit best suited to their needs as well as enabling them to find the cheapest credit.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the announcement which was made today by my right hon. Friend on the question of the steps which would be taken, with the support of the House, to control the rise in bread prices which would otherwise have taken place on 25th March. The

Government are considering at this time what further action might be appropriate in the longer term in this regard, including, for example, the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) earlier today and referred to by the hon. Member for Wells regarding the possibility of discontinuing the transport surcharge of ½p a loaf on sales in remote rural areas. These are matters which cause my Department considerable concern and which we are anxious to resolve.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of his anxiety that we should not under-estimate the importance of profits in our endeavours to maintain fair prices. It must be emphasised that the Government accept the important rôle played by profits and recognise clearly the connection between profits and investment. We want high profits, high wages, high productivity and high capital investment. But, however good the case may be for high profits in productive industries, we cannot accept that all profit—for example, in property speculation or as a result of very high interest rates—is automatically justified.
Some anxiety has been expressed, particularly by the hon. Member for Wells, about the possibility that the operations of the Price Commission in implementing the provisions of the Price Code would in some respects operate against profits. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Price Code was not the creation of the present Government; and, if there are to be any alterations or modifications, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's strictures, which might have been better directed to his right hon. and hon. Friends, will be borne in mind.
The problem of investments and of profit is one essentially of confidence, but for ordinary people there is also the question of confidence in the efficacy of price control. The Government are committed to achieving a greater stability of prices. That is why we intend to introduce a Bill to pay subsidies and why we shall take such other action as is open to us—with the support of the House—to restrain the frightening rise in the cost of living.
The right hon. Member for Taunton devoted perhaps the larger part of his speech to the question of the impact


of rate changes upon his constituents. He will appreciate that this is not a matter for me or for my right hon. Friend; it is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall, however, express my understanding of what the situation is.
Some of the matters of which the right hon. Member complained were plainly a direct consequence of action taken by the previous Government. Before the election the previous administration reached decisions on the amount and distribution of rate support grant to local authorities for 1974–75, but did not have time to make the rate support grant order embodying these decisions. Equally, there was no time for the present Government to review the main elements of those decisions. An order had to be laid and approved by the end of March for any grant at all to be payable to local authorities in April.
Apart from changes in proposals for domestic rate relief the order now laid incorporates the previous Government's proposals unaltered. A thorough review of the system will be undertaken, however, before the grant settlement for 1975–76. I can make no prediction at this time of the outcome of such a review. I have no doubt that what the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have said will be given close consideration by the Government. I simply reflect that the representations that hon. Members opposite made—to which the right hon. Gentleman drew my attention tonight—seem in the past not to have carried weight with his right hon. Friends in this respect; but that is a matter which can be pursued further with my right hon. Friend.
The previous Government always admitted, as I understood it, that their proposals would lead to sharp increases in non-domestic rates, presumably with the consequences of which the hon. Member for Wells spoke. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)—then Secretary of State for the Environment—said that increases of between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. would be typical and that they might be greater in some cases.
General rates in Somerset for 1973–74 range from 30p to 40p. On the limited information available I understand that 48p is likely to be a typical poundage

for 1974–75. The increase in industrial rates in Somerset next year follows directly from the previous Government's decision. However, it is right to emphasise that notwithstanding the percentage rises to which the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Wells referred the rates represent only a very small proportion of industrial and commercial costs. In the last year for which meaningful figures are available1968—they constituted only 0·75 per cent. of these costs, although I am prepared to acknowledge that the figure has risen somewhat since then. There is, furthermore, the point, which will be recognised by the right hon. Gentleman, that rates on businesses are an expense that may be offset against corporation tax or Schedule D income tax.
I turn finally to the point which the right hon. Gentleman made about the Government decision to abandon their predecessors' proposals for a system of variable domestic rate relief. This would have given householders in England, varying from authority to authority, between 7p and 40p in the pound in an attempt, which we now recognise to have been abortive, to restrict domestic rate increases everywhere to a maximum of 9 per cent. Under this system ratepayers in Somerset would have had rate relief of between 18·5p and 22·5p in the pound.
However, the new Government considered that this system tended to perpetuate the unfairness of the grant distribution methods used in 1973–74 and earlier years, and that calculations of the domestic relief for each authority were, in any case, giving rise to many anomalies. They have, instead, prescribed a flat rate relief of 13p in the pound for all authorities in England. The Rate Support Grant Order will be debated in the near future and a Minister who is more directly responsible for these matters than myself will reply.
None the less, I welcome the opportunity given to me tonight to say something of the work being done by this new Department, the establishment of which will be of great service to the country in seeking to restrain the frightening rise in the cost of living.

Mr. du Cann: The hon. Gentleman says that he is sure that the work of his Department will be of assistance. That


is what we all want. I went out of my way to wish him, and his Secretary of State, success, and my remarks in that connection were genuinely meant. But is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is wholly indifferent to this particular increase and that this is a matter for another Department? Is it the attitude of the hon. Gentleman that another Minister will be replying in a later debate and that he and his Minister will completely ignore the matter?

Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman is a sufficiently experienced Member of the House and has listened to the debate with sufficient attention to realise that no such implication could properly be drawn from my remarks. I am as clear as he is about the importance of his point. I have replied at considerable length on a matter which does not directly fall within my Department's responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that it is a courtesy that I chose to do so rather than simply refer him to the debate which is likely to take place soon on the Rate Support Grant Order. I make no complaint about the right hon. Gentleman deciding to raise an important constituency matter, but he will not expect me to go any further on it tonight.

Orders of the Day — DIEGO GARCIA

3.58 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The purpose of this debate is to help Ministers in the incoming Government to exhume one of the skeletons in the cupboard of our inheritance—namely the policy, discussion of which is in order under Class II, Vote 2, Subhead C8, of developing an Anglo-American base, or staging post and communications centre at Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean territory, 1,900 miles south-south-west of Singapore and 3,000 miles from the Suez Canal.
It may be thought a little strange that I did not take part in the extended debate on the Kilbrandon Report, but if Diego Garcia seems a rather esoteric subject, I believe that to go ahead with this project would sow the seeds of trouble for some years to come.
In 1967 I had hoped and thought that we had heard the last of coral atoll bases in the Indian Ocean, with the decision not

to go ahead with the proposed staging post at Aldabra—now, I am glad to say, manned only by a small unit of scientists from the Royal Society, living in peace with frigate birds, giant tortoises, pink-footed boobies and the rest of the unique eco-system of the atoll.
The plans that would have wrecked Aldabra were defeated by a combination of the Royal Society, the Treasury, various Americans—including Don Hornig, Glenn Seaborg and Dillon Ripley, Secretary of the Smithsonian—and a barrage of parliamentary Questions.
However, there are very persistent people in the Ministry of Defence and in the Pentagon. Frustrated on Aldabra, they have now turned their attention to Diego Garcia.
I had better say at once that my case would be harmed if I claimed the scientific, ecological considerations which were so powerful in the case of Aldabra applied equally to Diego Garcia. They do not. I shall not be handing in any personal letters from Dillon Ripley to 10, Downing Street, as in the case of Aldabra, on the subject of Diego Garcia.
I have a number of questions of which I have given the Foreign Office 36 hours' notice.
First, can we establish the facts? What exactly is to be done? Is there to be a deepening of the anchorage? What is meant by reports that it is to be done at "not too great a cost?" Is the airstrip to be lengthened from 8,000 ft. to 12,000 ft.? Is it true that the base is to handle strike aircraft as well as reconnaissance planes? Are there to be extra warehouses and fuel storage tanks? What about extra barracks? What is meant by extra maintenance facilities and communications facilities?
I have been told "Don't worry. This is nothing to get het up about. These are minor improvements." That is not the view of Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. He sees things a little differently. Eight days ago in Washington the Admiral wanted KC 135 jet tankers, which can refuel B 52 bombers, to patrol the Indian Ocean regularly. My hon. Friend knows very well that for B 52s and the P 3 Orion long-distance search aircraft to operate one needs facilities such as those at Guam. One does


not have KC 135s and B 52s just as a result of improving a minor facility.
The Economist said on 9th February that
the changes at Diego Garcia mean that a major American squadron will be operating more or less continuously in the Indian Ocean in the foreseeable future. They will allow the American Navy to bring its powers to bear in the area much more rapidly and effectively than in the past.
That surely means a squadron with major carrier protection.
A few months ago I took my little boy on an open day in the Firth of Forth on board the carrier "John F. Kennedy". The scale of the operation has to be seen to be believed. American squadrons do not operate from 2½d or even £12½ million facilities. I noticed in yesterday's Daily Express that by some miracle the figure had gone up overnight from £12½ million to £40 million. I am sceptical about whether anything to suit Admiral Moorer could be done in a typhoon-ridden coral atoll for less than £100 million. In the case of Aldabra I was told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), then Minister of Public Building and Works, that my estimate of £100 million was much more nearly right than the departmental estimate of £20 million at the time.
Does the Royal Navy plan to maintain a presence in the Indian Ocean when the Suez Canal reopens? Is it to do it on the principle of group operating, sending in a few warships for a few months at a time, usually led by a cruiser and whenever possible including a nuclear submarine? Is Diego Garcia to have a Nimrod capability?
I would much rather see the Royal Navy turning its attention and resources to the urgent requirement of a North Sea Environmental Command, along the lines envisaged by John Erickson and Alan Thomson, of Heriot Watt University, to protect our oil rigs and pipelines against sabotage and help in the development of the North Sea.
However, if the scientific case is weaker for Diego Garcia than for Aldabra, the political case is far stronger and more vocal.
What do we think we are up to, developing an Indian Ocean base against the public wishes of Mrs. Indira Ghandi and the Government of India; against

the public wishes of President Bhutto and the Government of Pakistan; against the public wishes of Mrs. Bandaranaike and the Government of Sri Lanka; against the public wishes of President Suharto and the Government of Indonesia; to say nothing of the caustic comment of Mr. Chou-en-Lai?
As a Member deeply interested in Britain's relations with Asia, I am embarrassed and appalled by my conversations with many Asian friends during the past year who do not understand why Britain should want to meddle in what they see as end-of-empire commitments. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows far more about the Africans than I do. How do her African friends react to what they see as a base in the Sea of Madagascar but which we call the Indian Ocean?

Mr. Ronald Brown: Is my hon. Friend going to make comments about every island in the Indian Ocean taken over by the Soviets, including those being used as intelligence units? Is he going to pursue that part of what is happening in the Indian Ocean?

Mr. Dalyell: I shall deal with the Soviet Aden based facilities and the possible Sverdlov-class cruiser and the 25 other Soviet ships which are supposed to be out there later in my speech.
In the interest of coherence, I shall go on with the series of questions to my hon. Friend of which I have given 36 hours' notice in detail.
First, what is the Foreign Office's reply to Mrs. Gandhi's statement of 7th February that plans to set up a nuclear base by Britain and America in the Indian Ocean were motivated by aggressive intentions and posed a threat to the security of India?
Secondly, can the Government deny that there are plans for a nuclear refuelling capability centre at Diego Garcia?
Thirdly, if there is to be nuclear involvement, is this not gratuitously offensive to the Indians, who have hitherto stuck to the concept of the "peaceful uses of atomic energy?".
Fourth, what is the Government's reaction to the suggestion by Mr. Swaran Singh, the Indian Foreign Minister, in


Parliament in Delhi on 12th March, that big naval powers should be invited to a conference on the prospects for "mutual restraint" in building up strengths in the Indian Ocean? I hope that the Russians would also attend such a conference.
Fifth, how does my hon. Friend react to the Indian Press report of 5th February that the then British Government "brushed aside" Indian representations that the Indian Ocean should be preserved as a "zone of peace"?
Sixth, what has been the reply to the Sri Lankan objections that they do not want to see the Indian Ocean made into a
… cockpit of big power rivalry"?
My hon. Friend is an expert in her own right on African affairs. I am not. But I would ask in what circumstances did the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home) find it necessary at a Press conference in Nairobi on 7th February to defend the build-up of Western naval strength in the Indian Ocean?
What discussion has there been with African States on over-flying rights, either from Britain or from possible bases such as Ascension Island? This is a very important question.
Is it true that, as far as the Arabs are affected, assurances have been given to them that Diego Garcia has no direct bearing on the Middle East or the Arab world?
In the light of the interesting article by that distinguished journalist, Martin Woollacott, in yesterday's Guardian, I want to raise a question which had not hitherto occurred to me. The American sector at Diego is supplied by Utapao, the American base in the Gulf of Thailand, and the article poses the problem the situation may present to the Thai Government.
Again, what complaints have been received from the Australian Government? On 8th February, Mr. Whitlam, the Australian Prime Minister, was reported as saying:
Any military expansion in the Indian Ocean conflicts with Australia's long-term objectives.
What representations has the Foreign Office received from the Soviet Government about expansion of British and American military facilities in the Indian

Ocean? What view does my hon. Friend take of the recent Soviet-Indian statement, signed by Mrs. Gandhi and Mr. Brezhnev, in which they reaffirmed their readiness to take part with other countries in an attempt to turn the area into a zone of peace? The Indians see this as a test of good faith, and so it is.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Mr. Ronald Brown rose——

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps my hon. Friend will make his own speech. What reasons are there to be sceptical of the Soviet-Indian intentions? Even if the Russians have port facilities at Aden and a Sverdlov-type cruiser and 25 other ships in the Indian Ocean, what do our Government think that the British and the Americans should do about it? Are we to understand that it is intended to match strength with strength?
I welcome very much the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, including his idea that safer and more productive relations should be sought with the Russians. I hope that a bit more dynamism will be added to the Geneva discussions. We are in danger of getting bogged down on the point of becoming counterproductive.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Does not my hon. Friend consider that the influx of Russian armament into the area has escalated the situation to a defence situation? Does he feel that we should take no further action and write off the area so that the Russians can use it entirely?

Mr. Dalyell: I hope that the policy outlined by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his first-class presentation to the House yesterday will be vigorously pursued.
What instructions are being sent to Mr. Ivor Richard on the matter of Diego Garcia? What is to be his attitude to the United Nations resolution to make the Indian Ocean a nuclear-free zone? Why did the previous Government refuse to deny that Diego Garcia would be used as a base for Polaris and Poseidon nuclear submarines? Was it because the deep lagoon at Diego Garcia, like the Holy Loch, provides ideal natural facilities?
On the issue of the Americans, I must mention that the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under the chairmanship


of Senator Mansfield look like giving the project a somewhat rough ride. In case it is thought a minor matter I quote the Annual Defense Department Report, FY1975, of the Secretary of Defense, James R. Schlesinger. It says:
As part of the effort to ensure a naval balance we plan to expand our facilities at Diego Garcia and maintain a more frequent presence in the Indian Ocean. We may also wish to consider the use of long-range land-based aircraft for patrol in that general area.
Aviation Week's "Washington Roundup" gives a full account of the matter. It says:
A Senate fight over the extension of a strong US military presence into the Indian Ocean is in the offing. It will centre around Defense Department's request … to start a major air and naval base on the British island of Diego Garcia, now the site of only a modest US communications installation … Senator Clairborne Pell, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is leading the opposition to what he refers to as the Defense Department's move 'to round out American control of the world's oceans, seeking a Mare A mericanum per Mundum''—an American World Ocean.
I hope that the Foreign Office, before it commits us, will talk to Senator Pell and hear his views.
I believe that Diego Garcia is the thin end of a big wedge, and the question for us is whether we are to underwrite a possible expansion of America's military rôle by providing a more than useful and perhaps essential piece of real estate.

4.14 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Miss Joan Lestor): I thank my hon. Friend for giving notice of some of the questions which he intended to raise. It has been possible to deal with some of them in some detail as he will see as my reply progresses.
The cost of administering the British Indian Ocean territory amounted to £88,993 in 1972–73. For 1973–74 the estimated cost is £123,000. From those figures the revenues which I shall mention shortly should be deducted. About half of the costs arise from the need to run a 500-ton cargo-passenger ship which is necessary to support life on the remote islands which are scattered over a distance of approximately 2,000 miles across the Indian Ocean. The vessel delivers food and other supplies and collects the copra produced on the island plantations.

The bulk of the remaining costs is attributable to running these plantations. The vessel and the plantations both produce revenue. The total revenue in 1972–73 was £73,716. For 1973–74 the estimated total revenue amounts to £87,000. The operations of the facilities on Diego Garcia have little bearing on these figures. The proposed expansion of these facilities would be paid for by the Americans.
The British Indian Ocean Territory was established as a colony by Order in Council in November 1965. The Territory is governed by a Commissioner. At present the Commissioner is also the Governor of Seychelles. The Deputy Governor of Seychelles is concurrently Administrator of the Territory. On Diego Garcia there is a British Government Representative who is at present the senior Royal Navy officer on the atoll. In addition to his naval duties, the Representative has a number of civilian tasks to perform. He is, for example, the magistrate, the civil registrar and the immigration officer. He is also concerned with the protection of wild life. As my hon. Friend is aware, Diego Garcia has none of the rare giant land tortoises which are to be found on Aldabra. But he will be glad to hear that there are three small islets at the mouth of the lagoon at Diego Garcia which are being left undisturbed to provide nesting sites for sea birds. My hon. Friend already knows that Aldabra has been leased to the Royal Society which maintains a research station there.
As hon. Members will be aware, an Exchange of Notes was signed by the British and American Governments in December 1966, under which the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory were made available for the defence purposes of both Governments for an initial period of 50 years. In 1968 Her Majesty's Government approved in principle, within the terms of the 1966 Exchange of Notes, the setting up of a limited United States naval communications facility at Diego Garcia. A further Exchange of Notes was signed in October 1972 and the facility began operating early in 1973. The purpose of this facility is to provide a link in United States defence communications and improved communications support in the Indian Ocean for United States


and British state-owned ships and aircraft. It includes an anchorage and an airfield.
In January this year the United States Government approached Her Majesty's Government for their approval in principle to plans for a further development of the facilities. These plans would involve improvements to the airfield and to the anchorage as well as to the shore facilities. The facilities would be available for British as well as American use. The previous Government gave their approval in principle on the basis stated in both Houses on 5th February. This is subject to a formal agreement being concluded in due course. A number of Governments, including those of the Indian Ocean Littoral States, were given notice of the 5th February announcement shortly before it was made. We have not been in office long enough to consider the question in any detail, although we shall, of course, do so as part of our general review of foreign policy. Any delay in establishing our attitude to this question does not carry implications as to what attitude Her Majesty's Government will eventually adopt.
It is, therefore, impossible for me to give answers to all the detailed questions my hon. Friend has put to me. I am sure he understands this. We shall of course give careful consideration to the views of the littoral countries, among whom are a number of our Commonwealth friends. But of course we and our allies also have a legitimate interest in the Indian Ocean which is crossed by sea lanes of vital importance to our economic interests.
In this connection one of the things which we also have to bear in mind is that the Soviet naval presence in the Indian Ocean has increased steadily in quantity and quality over the last five years and is larger than that of western countries.
Her Majesty's Government are always ready for positive discussion concerning the security of the Indian Ocean. We have not yet had time, as I have said, to consider the proposals for an Indian Ocean peace zone. But the Indian Ocean covers a vast area, and the difficulties of verifying a zone of peace, even if one could be demarcated, would be formidable.
I come now to one or two of the specific questions raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dalyell: May I say that I regard the Government's attitude as wholly reasonable. I am not asking for instant decisions. I just express the hope that, in the bogged-down Geneva talks, we shall get a move on and discuss the zone of peace as a practical proposition.

Miss Lestor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. They will be borne in mind as we review this whole question.
Over the past six years, up to six Royal Navy frigates have been deployed east of the Cape. At any one time, one or two of these ships would have been transiting or operating in the Indian Ocean. Present deployment plans envisage at least six ships being deployed east of the Cape for a total of about 10 months of the year.
I come next to my hon. Friend's reference to Mrs. Ghandi's representations on 7th February. In her speech, made during the course of an election campaign, Mrs. Ghandi said nothing that was new, had not been said before, or was not known to us. Indian views about keeping the Indian Ocean as a nuclear-free zone are well known. No reply or comment by Her Majesty's Government at that time was called for.
My hon. Friend asked about our reaction to the suggestion that the big naval Powers should be invited to a conference on the prospects of mutual restraint. We have not been approached by the Government of India on this matter. I do not think that I can be expected to make any pronouncements about our attitude to such a request at this stage, before we have had the opportunity to review the matter in detail.
My hon. Friend asked also about reports in the India Press that the British Government had brushed aside the Indian representations. These reports are completely erroneous. The Indian Government were told informally at an early stage that negotiations between ourselves and the Americans were in progress. Subsequently, the Indian Government were formally notified by our High Commissioner in Delhi of the plan to extend the facilities on Diego Garcia.


Far from brushing aside the Indian representations, we have kept the Indian Government well informed of the position.
Next, the question of flying rights over African States. In the event of a Royal Air Force aircraft en route to or returning from Diego Garcia wishing to overfly African countries, diplomatic clearance would be sought from the country or countries in question in the normal fashion. There is no question of that not taking place.
My hon. Friend mentioned complaints from the Australians. We have received no official complaints from the Australians, but the Australian Government have said publicly that the arrangements proposed for Diego Garcia do not contribute to the long-term objectives of an Indian Ocean peace zone. Mr. Whitlam said on 19th March that he hoped that there would be an agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union to restrict their Indian Ocean build-up, and these comments will be borne in mind as we proceed to review the whole policy.
My hon. Friend recognises that it is not possible for me to answer some of his questions, since we are reviewing the matter, but if there is any point which I have missed on which I could comment now, I shall be happy to try to help.

Mr. Dalyell: I find my hon. Friend's response wholly reasonable, and I shall take up no more of the time of the House.

Orders of the Day — NOISE

4.25 a.m.

Mr. Sydney Tierney: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to address the House, even at this hour in the morning—although it is not a time I would have chosen to inflict a maiden speech upon anyone. Before turning to my subject, as the new Member for Birmingham, Yardley I wish to express my appreciation and that of my constituents for the hard work and conscientious service of my predecessors, the present hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) who represented the constituency from 1964 to 1970 and Mr. Derek Coombs, who represented it from 1970 until the end of the last Parliament.
It is now my privilege to represent Yardley and I will do my utmost fully to represent the people there. Yardley is a pleasant, mainly residential, constituency. It is a constituency which is said to have a nice social mix, usually providing an ideal barometer at election times because of its evenly balanced political make-up. It is claimed that the rest of the country votes as Yardley votes. I must say that I was a little disappointed at the way some parts of the country voted, but on this occasion I was delighted with the way Yardley responded.
My constituency is a dormitory area of Birmingham, with a high proportion of white-collar workers commuting daily to the city centre while other workers go off each day, in the main outside the constituency, to the Rover, Lucas and other works. Because of this situation public transport facilities and their continued improvement are of some importance to my constituents.
Yardley can claim at the opposite ends of its scale of values that it has a parish church which has just celebrated its thousandth year of existence and a public house which lays claim to having the largest bar in Britain. The constituency contains detached houses of some opulence, row after row of semi-detached houses in varying degrees of attractiveness and council house estates, both old and new.
Nevertheless, interspaced in and around the constituency are secluded pockets of Victorian houses, many of which are in a state of decay. There is a sizeable number of people living in bad conditions who need new housing. I could go on about the problems of housing and mortgage rates and rents and tell the House about the unlet office blocks in the Sheldon area of my constituency which are landmarks of no great beauty. They are towering advertisements for the vacant and faceless side of the speculators in our community who ignore the real priorities of life.
I must now turn to the main issue in my speech. Birmingham Airport is situated towards the edge of my constituency. Part of the Sheldon Ward lies quite close to the airport and to busy take-off and landing routes. Aircraft noise and pollution is a growing social


problem in the area, hence my interest in the Supplementary Estimates to the Supply Estimates affecting civil aviation for the year ending 31st March.
Until the beginning of the Second World War there were few aircraft and those there were were comparatively low-powered and quiet. During the war, however, the number of military aircraft increased until few parts of Britain were unaffected by their noise. After the war civil aviation concentrated on a small number of airfields and began to develop fast. For some years complaints about noise had been received from people living near these airports. The number of complaints increased sharply with the introduction of the turbo-engined aircraft in 1958.
Under Subhead A.2, which deals with services in the United Kingdom involving other current expenditure, I note and welcome the fact that more money is being spent on airport planning studies. I assume that the policy is that prevention is better than cure. Planning and siting is of major importance, and a number of our airports which before the war accommodated weekend flyers and were suitable for that purpose are unsuitably placed as airport terminals and in consequence noise problems are aggravated in these areas.
The Committee on the Problems of Noise, commonly known as the Wilson Committee, presented its report to Parliament in July 1963. The committee also dealt with aircraft noise, and its up-to-date and comprehensive report made a major contribution to noise problems. It reported that after 1958 aircraft noise began to be a major problem. It also reported upon some of the technical problems and made certain recommendations.
I am not sufficiently well trained or qualified to go into the technical reasons about the source and volume increase in noise, except to say that, with more movements of bigger and more powerful aircraft, it generally increased. Turbo-jet engines generate noise of a character which is more unfamiliar and intrinsically more disturbing than that of propeller-driven aircraft. As might be expected, the number of complaints from the public has risen since 1958, with the greater number of complaints coming from

populations living close to airports under busy take-off and landing routes. Most complaints concern take-off and landing noise.
In addition to annoying and disturbing people in their homes in the vicinity of airports, interfering with television reception and disrupting conversation and general social life, it also affects patients and staff in hospitals and disrupts teaching in schools. In my constituency there is a school under a flight path which suffers from interruption to such an extent that the school will have to be re-sited if the best interests of the children in the school are to be served.
Research and development work on aircraft noise problems is proceeding in Government establishements, as we are aware. I refer in this connection to Subhead A.2, payments for research and development. I note that there is an underspending due to delays in programme and late billing. I am not familiar with the details lying behind that explanation. May I be assured that it does not mean that less money eventually will be spent on research and development?
I readily support additional money being spent in this connection. A noise survey at Birmingham Airport, which is owned and operated by Birmingham Corporation, cost more than £40,000. The corporation has met the full cost through its public health committee. The survey was carried out by private consultants and would not have been done at all except for the public-spirited members of Birmingham City Council and its public health committee. More Government money ought to be allocated for these purposes to determine high-level noise areas, and the costs should not have to be met by the ratepayers.
The Birmingham survey established beyond doubt that a noise problem existed. It was clear from the report that some people were living in conditions where the noise exposure should not be tolerated. Over a period of time, the noise is such that there might be a risk of hearing damage. No amount of sound insulation would make life tolerable in the case of those living in the zone of highest noise exposure. These people are living in conditions which can be made tolerable only by sound insulation in their homes.
These findings could only have been made on a voluntary basis. There should be some responsible authority in the Department to insist that these tests be made in the interests of the general public, and they should be financed accordingly.
I now refer to Class IV, Vote 2. Under A.2(1) it states:
The transfer of Noise Monitoring Units to the British Airports Authority has been postponed, some payments were carried over from 1972–73".
Under paragraph (5), "Miscellaneous", it states:
The main increase is to meet the continuing site costs of the Noise Monitoring Units because of the delay in transferring them to the British Airports Authority.
The wording in paragraph (5) would indicate that the postponement in paragraph (1)—the transfer of Noise Monitoring Units to the British Airports Authority—is of a temporary nature. I should like to ask whether the transfer is intended and, if the answer is in the affirmative, whether it is an administrative move, a policy move, or both. Does the transfer of these units by the Department of Trade and Industry to the British Airports Authority, which controls five major airports, mean that the Department will not in future be directly concerned with noise problems and the use of noise monitoring units at airports other than those under the control of the British Airports Authority.
In my view, it will be necessary in future, as the problem increases, to enact legislation which will force airport authorities, other than the five tied to the British Airports Authority, to use noise monitoring units to check whether there is a noise nuisance in the vicinity of some airports. Otherwise, monitoring may not take place and any nuisance will go on unabated.
My final reference is to A.7:
Services in the UK: capital equipment". Delivery of noise monitoring equipment has been delayed.
Does that mean that, because of delays in delivery of equipment, it has not been paid for in the financial accounting period originally envisaged? Do I understand correctly that the units are now installed, that the one at Gatwick is fully operational under the control of the British Airports Authority, and that the one at

Heathrow will be operational in a matter of a few weeks? Is the equipment of a standard that is considered as being totally automated—what might be termed as listening-watch equipment?
I pose these questions because I believe that any noise monitoring system dealing with monitoring extreme noise levels without modern equipment is falling short of requirements. It is necessary, where there is contravention by aircraft of the maximum noise levels permissible, that it should be picked up by the equipment as quickly as possible and that the culprit be dealt with straight away. I will support and approve the expenditure of money on bringing this type of equipment into use more quickly and on a more widespread basis so that all airports in the country can benefit from its use as and when required.
Aircraft noise and pollution is an area where a great deal needs to be done. If we are to prevent aircraft noise and pollution from being the social menace that it is, then much needs doing quickly. It is a difficult area in which to operate successfully, and the containment of the problem deserves the full support of the House.

4.39 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I am sure that the House would like me to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Tierney) on his excellent maiden speech even at this early hour of the morning. He delivered his speech in a most competent manner and dealt in depth with his constituency. His constituents should be proud that he has so forcibly on their behalf put forward the argument about noise in Birmingham, Yardley. We look forward to hearing him again in the months ahead.
I address myself to Class IV, Vote 4, which refers to research and development contracts that have been issued by the Department of Trade and Industry. We read the sad statement:
Requirements and progress substantially less than expected.
I find that a most extraordinary statement, because over the years I have been urging that special research should be undertaken into the noise that comes from various woodworking machines and machinery in industry generally. Until now it has been thought that men in the


furniture industry who retire deaf at the end of their working lives have reached that state because of their age. It is now being found that the noise levels in which they have worked for the best part of their lives have damaged their hearing. I think that the Department should spend whatever money it can in the interests of those whose hearing is being damaged.
There are two factors which workers have to contend with when operating woodworking machines. First, these machines operate at about 12,000 revolutions per minute. That in itself produces a high-pitched whine in excess of 80 to 90 decibels. Superimposed upon that there is the noise of putting the timber into the machine. The two factors combine to produce a noise level well in excess of 80 to 90 decibels, and this is clearly damaging to those in the industry. I hope that the Department will ensure that there is an on-going research programme to try to find a means of ensuring that machinery either manufactured here or imported from abroad is properly designed to reduce noise levels.
It is insufficient to observe that the use of ear muffs reduces the effect of noise. In the furniture industry, the men working at these machines use the noise as part of their skill. For instance, if a piece of timber is in any way faulty, or has knots or grains that are likely to cause trouble, the change in noise as it passes through the machine tells the man in charge that he has to take speedy action. The change in noise is an extra safety precaution for him. If he wears ear muffs to protect himself from the noise, he is not able to detect any change in the noise level and he is likely to be injured because he has failed to note that the timber ought to be specially handled.
The accident rate in this industry is tragically higher than in other industries, and that illustrates the need for special care and research. Therefore, it is very sad to read in the Supplementary Estimates for 1973–74 that the Department was unable or unwilling to spend its money to determine industrial contracts with industry to research into the effects of noise.
I brought to the attention of the previous Government, and no doubt I shall do the same with the present Govern-

ment, the dangers of polyurethane foam. These dangers are manifest, yet Departments have refused to take the matter seriously. I have asked for increased Government funds to be spent on research to find a safe polyurethane foam. Absurdly enough, one firm has spent £500,000 on such research. If it is successful, anyone using the foam would have to pay royalties. Fires are caused by this material and people are killed, yet we might end up having to pay royalties to prevent these tragedies. The Department has plenty of opportunity to invest funds in industrial contracts to find answers to these problems, yet all they can report is that they have saved £40,000 on a £94,000 Estimate in this way.
I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his appointment. Although he has been in office only a short time, I hope that he will be able to assure me that this money will be spent on research to ensure that workers are not afflicted with deafness when they retire.

4.48 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Tierney), on his maiden speech. He certainly appears to have gone into the subject with care. I am sure that the House will hear from him again in future, although I hope at a more agreeable hour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) spoke with considerable knowledge about noise nuisance in factories, particularly furniture factories, on which he is an expert. This is a matter to which he has addressed his mind for sonic time, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not go into the subject in depth, because it falls more within the ambit of the Department of Industry. We will note carefully what my hon. Friend said and the information will be transmitted to my right hon. Friend.
I know that my hon. Friend's observations are justified. He and I are neighbours in London. We have worked together over a long period and on this type of debate before. I feel rather as though Flanagan and Allen had split up on this occasion. It is a great pity in some respects and is one of the disadvantages of appearing on the Front Bench.


However, I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about my shedding a certain amount of maidenly virtue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yardley dealt primarily with the difficulties of his constituency in its close proximity to Elmdon airport, an airport with which I am somewhat familiar from having spent a large part of my less mature life travelling through it in my courting days. In those days Elmdon did not represent any difficulty for the surrounding inhabitants, because it was a very small airport. Today it is increasing in scope all the time.
My hon. Friend will realise that Elmdon is an airport in respect of which my Department has no responsibility. It is run by Birmingham Corporation and we have not designated it under Section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act as an airport for which the Department of Trade would have direct responsibilities as regards noise abatement.
There seems to have been no demand for the designation of Birmingham airport under that section. Noise monitoring is only part of the responsibilities that would fall on the Department of Trade if it were so designated. Therefore, if Birmingham Corporation at any time felt that it was necessary for the Department of Trade to assume this responsibility I am certain that it would call upon us to do so. At the moment, although we certainly watch the situation carefully and would offer any guidance and help that is possible, the airport is strictly within control and responsibility of Birmingham Corporation and the information I have been given gives me no reason to suppose that Birmingham Corporation is not assuming and carrying out those responsibilities properly.
My hon. Friend raised a number of important points in relation to the airport and noise problems. As regards existing noise levels, we are aware that this is an increasing problem. The pestilence of noise, even though it may not be on the scale of noise at London Airport, concerns people in the Yardley area, particularly at Garrett's Green, Kitts Green, Tile Cross and Sheldon. We must keep the matter in perspective, however, and the greater part of these areas is outside the level of disturbance which would qualify for sound proofing at airports for

which such grants are paid. I am also advised that Kitts Green itself is badly affected by noise from the nearby railway.
Future noise levels will depend entirely on future traffic at the airport. The Civil Aviation Authority is considering the Midlands airport study which was commissioned a little time ago and which covers Birmingham and East Midlands. A further airport study has been commissioned which deals with Central England. Those two studies will have to be viewed together. The consultants expect a report on the latter study within the next few weeks and the Civil Aviation Authority will then make its recommendations in due course, so we have to consider both studies before the authority is able to make any definite recommendations.
The question of soundproofing in Birmingham arises but, again, that is not a matter for which this Department is responsible. The Birmingham Corporation commissioned a report by the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research at Southampton University on environmental noise at Birmingham Airport and that is being considered, although I am informed that, again, it is considered to be somewhat alarmist—unnecessarily so in some of its observations.
The question of noise abatement at Birmingham Airport follows procedures adopted at most United Kingdom airports with power abated climb-out with a modified form of minimum noise routings, and restrictions are placed on training flights, which are not allowed between 6 p.m. and 8 a.m., and on ground running.
Finally, we have not received many complaints about Elmdon. None has come in recent years from the Yardley area, although this debate may have the effect of provoking some. The main source of complaints has been the surrounding area.
My hon. Friend asked what research and development we are undertaking in relation to the reduction of aircraft noise. This, too, is primarily the responsibility of others than the Department of Trade. There is a major research establishment run at Pyestock by the Ministry of Defence Procurement Executive and where civil aviation work is required. Some work is done at Pyestock for the


Aerospace Assessment and Research Division of the Department of Industry. The Department of Trade keeps a watching brief on any developments that may lead to a reduction of aircraft noise.
Our rôle, therefore, is substantially that of determining whether any successful research has been undertaken and whether it is likely to have any practical application following consultation, and it may on some occasions be necessary to make those changes mandatory.
The other matter to which I want to allude, arising out of my hon. Friend's speech, is the sort of monitoring that is done at airports other than Birmingham. At Heathrow and Gatwick this is done at the request of the Department of Trade. At Luton and Manchester it is done at the request of the local authorities, which are responsible for the airports. One of the things that emerge from the Estimate is that delays have been encountered in installing new monitoring equipment. That has concerned my hon. Friend. I know, from conversations that I have had with him. I want to put the matter in its correct perspective. For many years it has been the intention to install fully automatic systems at Heathrow and Gatwick to replace the mobile and semi-automatic equipment which has been there since the early 1960s.
The fully automatic equipment did not become available until 1971. A contract was given for the supply of a 13-point system for Heathrow in 1972, and its installation is proceeding as rapidly as possible. The equipment was delivered virtually on time, but there have since been difficulties in negotiating for the 13 sites on which the microphones will stand. These difficulties have virtually been resolved—six microphones are now in operation and the remaining seven will come into use shortly. There was no difficulty regarding the monitoring of noise during this period, because the older system remained fully operational and so there was no gap in the monitoring.
Almost all jet planes taking off from Heathrow are monitored, the figure for

monitoring being roughly 98 per cent. Therefore, the delay in installing the new system has in no way reduced the effectiveness of noise monitoring at Heathrow. A similar automatic system for four microphones is already installed at Gatwick and is now operating in parallel with the older mobile equipment in order to prove its acceptability.
My hon. Friend asked whether the equipment used at Heathrow and Gatwick would set the standard for installations at other airports. The Department of Trade and Industry has no immediate plans for further installations at other designated airports, which are Stansted and Prestwick. Edinburgh is also a BAA operated airport, but is not designated at present. Should owners of other airports wish to install noise monitoring equipment the Department and the British Airports Authority will be able to give them the benefit of its considerable expertise.
I think I have covered most of the points raised by my hon. Friend, but if there are any other matters affecting his constituency which may give him concern I am sure he will not hesitate to get in touch with me, or write to the Department. I hope that he will consider that the Department will use every possible means to ensure that his constituency interests are fully considered at all times.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue and I hope that the House will have the benefit of hearing him on many future occasions.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and immediately committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to the Order of the House this day; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill he now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Golding.]

Orders of the Day — PATRICK MEEHAN

5.5 a.m.

Mr. Frank McElhone (Glasgow, Queens Park): I rise to raise the case of Patrick Connelly Meehan, a constituent of mine, who, as I am standing here, is completing his fifth year of a sentence of life imprisonment in Peterhead Prison for a crime many people believe he did not commit. He was convicted in the High Court in Edinburgh in October 1969 for the murder in her bungalow in Ayr of Mrs. Rachael Ross.
The crime was frightful, and I do not seek to condone it. It involved the death of an elderly woman who was tied up in her own home in furtherance of the theft of her husband's savings. I am not here to condone or overlook the past criminal activities of my constituent, Patrick Meehan. Rather am I here in the interests of justice, for it matters not whether the person concerned was Patrick Meehan, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, me or anyone else in the Chamber. What matters is that it appears that the wrong man was convicted.
Patrick Meehan is a man with a long record of dishonesty but no record of violence. He was charged and subsequently convicted of the crime, albeit by a majority of nine to six. Despite the character of the crime, and despite the the character of Patrick Meehan, there is every reason to believe not only that he was wrongly convicted but that one of the likely perpretrators of the crime is known and is at large.
A person was named and accused by the defence at the original trial in October 1969, and since then that person has confessed to, and been sentenced for, giving perjured evidence at the original trial. He has subsequently confessed in detail to the actual crime of which Meehan was convicted, a confession which he denied on ascertaining that it had been surreptitiously recorded by the BBC.
There can be few, if any, other cases in legal history in Scotland or in England

of a man serving a sentence of life imprisonment for a crime to which another man has confessed in uncontrovertible detail. Even if there had been no such defence and no such confession, the events which emerged and the evidence which has become available since the conviction cast the greatest doubts upon the validity of the original verdict.
The Crown case was never more than circumstantial. It depended in the main upon five factors or circumstances. Two of those five were provided by Meehan himself to the police at a very early stage in their inquiry, even before Meehan had been arrested and before suspicion had focused upon him in any way.
Meehan told the police that he had been in the proximity of Ayr and in the company of James Griffiths on the night of the crime. Following upon his arrest he gave the name and address of James Griffiths to the police in support of his alibi. When the police went to arrest Griffiths a gun battle ensued in Glasgow, in the course of which Griffiths, who was armed, was shot dead.
At the trial, the first two circumstances of the Crown case were that Meehan was in the proximity of Ayr on the night in question and that he was in the company of Griffiths, who had attempted to shoot his way out when being arrested for the crime, and who had a criminal record for violence, which the jury was allowed to hear in the course of Meehan's trial.
The third circumstance was the identification of Meehan by his voice. At an identification parade Mr. Abraham Ross, the widower of the deceased, asked that each member of the parade say the words "Shut up, shut up. We'll get an ambulance." Meehan, who was in the first position on the parade, spoke the words and was immediately identified by his voice. No other person on that parade spoke those words.
The fourth circumstance was that the men involved referred to each other as "Pat" and "Jim"—the Christian names of Meehan and Griffiths. The fifth circumstance was that there were found, some six weeks after Griffiths' death, in a car coat belonging to him, scraps of paper which could have had a common origin with paper in Mr. Ross's safe. Thus, the Crown relied heavily on


Griffiths' presence, Griffiths' violence, Griffiths' record, and Griffiths' voice.
Subsequent to Meehan's trial, and prior to his appeal against conviction, it was discovered that the BBC had in its possession a recorded interview with Griffiths in an English prison. I asked constitutional experts in the House whether I could play this tape, because it would have a very important bearing on the case. Although I have the tape in the House, I am, of course, responding to the wishes and practice of the House and I am depending upon the oral case I am presenting to influence my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am delighted to see that even at this late hour my hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is also present, and I am extremely grateful to him.
As I have said, subsequent to Meehan's trial, and prior to his appeal against conviction, it was discovered that the BBC had in its possession a recorded interview with Griffiths in an English prison. In the course of that interview, Griffiths stated that he could never face prison again and that if ever any attempt were made to arrest him he would shoot his way out. He also spoke with a pronounced North of England accent. This is very important because in the course of the trial Mr. Ross, himself a Glaswegian, claimed that the two raiders had Scottish accents and that the one referred to as "Jim" spoke with a Glasgow accent.
None the less, the Appeal Court, when Meehan's appeal came before it, refused to allow the recording of Griffiths' voice to be played to Mr. Ross. Such was the Crown case that the raiders were either Meehan and Griffiths together or neither. Had Mr. Ross, on hearing the tape, excluded Griffiths, he would thereby have excluded Meehan and, indeed, would thereby have excluded all the evidence which there was against Meehan.
At the trial, Meehan impeached Ian Waddell, an unemployed labourer. Waddell gave evidence at the trial, during the course of which he denied having paid £200 to a Glasgow solicitor as a retainer in the event of his being charged with the murder. Mr. Ross, who, in the course of the trial, heard Waddell use the words

Shut up. Shut up. We'll get an ambulance
stated that Waddell's could have been one of the voices heard in the house during the robbery.
Despite considerable evidence pointing towards Waddell, the presiding judge withdrew from the consideration of the jury the special defence impeaching him. Recent clarification of the law in the case of Her Majesty's Advocate against Lambie has made it clear that the special defence ought not to have been withdrawn from the jury.
Subsequent to the dismissal of Meehan's appeal against his conviction, Ian Waddell was charged with and pleaded guilty to having given perjured evidence at Meehan's trial in that he denied having paid the retainer to the Glasgow solicitor concerned. When he was sentenced for perjury, the presiding judge, Lord Cameron, gave it as his opinion that had Waddell told the truth at Meehan's trial the jury in Meehan's trial might have come to a different conclusion.
In February 1973 Ian Waddell on two separate occasions gave blunt and detailed confessions to members of the BBC, that he was responsible for the crime, along with another man, the identity of whom was the one detail of the crime that he refused to divulge. Unknown to him, the members of the BBC staff to whom he was speaking in a Glasgow public house were surreptitiously recording his conversation. When the existence of these recordings became known, Waddell attempted unsuccessfully to interdict the BBC from making use of them, and denied indeed ever having made the confessions.
Waddell gave detailed descriptions of the design and content of the house, facts which could only be within the knowledge of someone who had been in the house, and facts which were subsequently confirmed by Mr. Ross's daily help.
As though that by itself were not enough, it is now apparent that the conduct of the identification parade at which Meehan was identified by his voice was highly irregular. But that was not the only irregularity in this affair. No sooner was James Griffiths dead than, in contradiction of the supreme principle of our law of the presumption of innocence, the


Crown Office issued the following statement:
With the death of Griffiths and the apprehension of Patrick Meehan, the police are no longer looking for any other person suspected of implication in the incident concerning Mr. and Mrs. Ross at Ayr.
With such prejudice, what need is there for evidence? But such prejudice was carried into the evidence, and the criminal record of James Griffiths was put before the jury. Had Griffiths been alive and sitting in the dock instead of being dead and named in the indictment along with Meehan, his record would not have been used against himself, far less against his co-accused.
In the time available to me I have been able to give a mere outline of the paucity and frailty of the evidence of the Crown, of the prejudice surrounding the trial and the evidence, of the wrong withdrawal of the special defence of impeachment, and, above all, of the weight of the evidence now to hand which suggests strongly the guilt of another perpetrator and scuttles entirely any evidence implicating the man who is at present serving a sentence of life imprisonment in respect of this crime.
Our law and our legal system are intended to protect the individual, however good or however bad he may be, against wrongful conviction. Where it fails, as it has failed here, it is the duty of us all to admit our mistake and strengthen our law and our legal system by admitting our mistake rather than deny our mistake and pretend that our law and our system are perfect.
Who in the House would ever say that upon the evidence now available a jury would ever convict Patrick Meehan? This is a unique case. It has disturbed the conscience of many persons within the legal profession, persons of standing and responsibility. It should now disturb the conscience of the House and of the nation. I earnestly urge the Secretary of State for Scotland to set up with the utmost urgency an impartial inquiry to recommend the Queen's Pardon for Patrick Meehan and thus ensure that justice is done.
In conclusion, I wish to put on record my most sincere thanks for assistance and guidance in preparing the case on behalf of Patrick Meehan to Mr. Nicholas Fair-bairn, the QC at his trial, to Mr. Leonard Murray who prepared this brief and,

especially, to Mr. Joseph Beltrami, a solicitor at the trial, who has been convinced of the innocence of Patrick Meehan ever since he was convicted five years ago.

5.19 a.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Milian): I very much recognise the concern which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) feels about this matter. I accept the sincerity of the views which he has expressed. I do not go along with everything that he has said. Nevertheless, I recognise that my hon. Friend and lots of other people feel strongly about the case.
When considering this case it is important to remind the House of the constitutional position of the Secretary of State. When a person has been duly convicted and sentenced by a court of law the primary responsibility of the Secretary of State is to ensure that the orders of courts of law are carried out. This is a case in which a final determination has been made and only action within the powers of the Secretary of State could re-open it. To re-open the case would be, in effect, to re-open a jury verdict. I think that my hon. Friend will accept that this is not a subject which we wish to take lightly.
Apart from any general powers to set up an inquiry—I understand that my hon, Friend has been asking for such an inquiry—it would be useful if I were to describe the formal powers granted to the Secretary of State for use in exceptional circumstances. They are two. First, he has the right to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. Secondly, he has statutory powers under Section 16 of the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act 1926 to refer the case to the High Court of Justiciary. He can do that in either of two ways. He can remit the whole case to be heard and determined as if it were an appeal or he can seek the opinion of the court on points raised by him to assist him in the determination of any representations which have been made to him. These are powers which can be used only in the most exceptional circumstances.
If a reference to the High Court is to be made it can be justified only when some new matter of grave substance has been raised which should be the subject


of judicial scrutiny before a proper determination of the case can be made. In the exercise of these powers we must bear in mind the Secretary of State's rôle. He is not given the authority of judge or jury. It is not for him to pass judgment on Patrick Meehan's guilt or innocence. He cannot re-try the case himself and decide on the relative merits of conflict-Mg evidence, nor can he appoint someone to re-try it on his behalf. All that he can do is to consider whether he is justified in any particular case in exercising these extraordinary powers.
On the basis of the information which was before the previous Secretary of State he found himself unable to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in Meehan's favour or to take any of the other exceptional steps already mentioned. I shall have to mention the previous Secretary of State on a number of occasions. In a way it is a pity that he is no longer in the House. I shall describe the facts up until the present moment.
The case itself is one in which the evidence against Meehan was largely circumstantial. That was a point which was made by my hon. Friend. I shall go over the facts of the case quite briefly. In doing so I shall pick up a number of the points which my hon. Friend made.
The house of Mr. Ross and his wife was broken into in the early hours of Sunday 6th July 1969. Mr. Ross and his wife were treated roughly by the intruders and tied up. They told the thieves where there was money in the house—a considerable amount of money. After the thieves had left Mr. and Mrs. Ross were unable to attract the attention of anyone during the whole of Sunday and they were not freed until they were found by the cleaning woman when she arrived at the house on Monday morning. Mrs. Ross, who was an elderly lady of 71 years of age, died on Wednesday 9th July as a result of her experiences. As my hon. Friend has said, it was an appalling crime. The thieves probably wore masks. They covered Mr. and Mrs. Ross with blankets, and visual identification was not possible. Mr. and Mrs. Ross were aware only that there were two intruders. Both spoke on one or two occasions, once addressing each other as Pat and Jim respectively.
Meehan was arrested on 14th July and was placed the same day on an identification parade. At the parade Mr. Ross identified him by his voice as one of the two intruders. He was thereafter charged with the robbery and murder on an indictment which alleged that he was acting in company with James Griffiths. James Griffiths was an admitted associate of Meehan for criminal purposes and he was also being sought by the police in connection with the robbery and murder. He was killed by the police on 15th July after a gun battle in the streets of Glasgow in which a number of people were injured, one of them fatally.
The trial of Meehan took place at the High Court in Edinburgh on 24th October 1969. He was found guilty on a majority verdict by the jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. An appeal against conviction was lodged on four counts, to some of which I shall refer. After hearing and examining the grounds for appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal on 25th November 1969.
Since the dismissal of his appeal, representations have been made on Meehan's behalf not only by my hon. Friend but by others. My hon. Friend has mentioned one or two of them tonight. The representations were for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in Meehan's favour. I think that it may be convenient if I comment on the main points which have been raised in these representations, since most of them have been gone over by my hon. Friend.
It has always been clear that there was some conflict of evidence at the trial—about the timing of the robbery in relation to the state of light during the night and what effect it had on Meehan's claim that he could not have committed the crime, and about the fact that Mr. Ross identified both speakers he heard as having Glasgow accents, whereas it was known and not disputed that the late James Griffiths had an English accent.
But these conflicts were fully before the jury when it reached its verdict. An attempt was made at the appeal hearing to introduce as evidence the BBC tape of James Griffiths' voice, to which my hon. Friend referred, but the court held that the fact that Griffiths did not have a Glasgow accent had been fully put to the jury at the original trial.
A new point has, however, been raised since the original proceedings relating to the conduct of the identification parade. Doubt has been cast on whether the parade took the form in which the jury were told of it. The previous Secretary of State and Lord Advocate had inquiries carried out into this aspect of the trial, and, while there remained a conflict of evidence, the results of those inquiries did not cause the Secretary of State to alter the view which he had previously taken.
I come now to Mr. Ian Waddell. He was formally impeached for the robbery by Mr. Meehan at his trial. The jury, after hearing evidence bearing on the question of his alleged involvement in the crime, did not uphold the impeachment but convicted Meehan. Waddell was subsequently convicted of perjury in respect of part of the evidence which he had given at Meehan's trial.
Last year Waddell made statements to various persons, including two BBC staff, to the effect that he had committed the robbery, and he described items in the interior of the Ross's house, with the implication that he could know of these details only through his participation in the robbery. He offered, in return for a payment which I understand he put at £30,000, to undergo a truth drug test about his involvement in the crime, an offer which the BBC refused. He subsequently attempted to interdict the showing of a BBC film based on its inquiries, including conversations with him, and in the proceedings he denied any involvement in the crime and retracted the statements which he had already made.
Again, the previous Secretary of State and Lord Advocate had investigations carried out in the light of these activities of Waddell and the possibility that he was involved in the crime to the exclusion of Meehan. As a result of these investigations, the Lord Advocate reached the decision that no criminal

prosecution would be raised against Waddell, and the Secretary of State reached the conclusion that the investigations justified no further action on his part.
None the less, having given that description of what has happened so far, I accept that many people who have interested themselves in this case, including my hon. Friend, still feel considerable disquiet.
This is a difficult and anxious case. I repeat that it is the prime function of the Secretary of State to carry out decisions reached by a court of law. He cannot re-try a case or appoint another to re-try it for him. So far I have necessarily been outlining the decisions taken by a previous Secretary of State and a previous Lord Advocate. It is not for me to comment on these decisions one way or another except that I should say, and I hope my hon. Friend accepts this, that obviously this case has already been carefully considered.
The responsibilty now lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I can undertake on behalf of my right hon. Friend that he will make a full examination of the case in the light of the available evidence and the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend today. I cannot say what decision my right hon. Friend will reach after he has carried out this investigation but I can say that he will look into the case carefully and most thoroughly and reach a conclusion as soon as he reasonably can, given the complexity of the matter. I think my hon. Friend will understand that it is not possible for me to go further than that. He has the assurance that the matters he has raised, and other relevant matters, will be most thoroughly considered by my right hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Six o'clock a.m.